Grappling, why?

[bugei]

I've heard over and over at this forum that grappling is better than striking. I personally do a striking art, and have found it very effective, but most of the people here seem to (i may be wrong) think grappling is more effective. I was just wondering if, and if so, why you think grappling is more effective.

[darrianation]

Hmmmmm....The age-old question? It depends on your perspective really. Someone here on this forum (don't remember who, sorry) has a signature that reads "According to grapplers 90% of all fights go to the ground. According to the strikers 100% of fight start standing up" (not sure if this is completely right), anyway I think it sums it up pretty well.

For competition I like both (performing and watching). But for self-defense you need striking, grappling, and weapons to be most effective. Remember: Hit first, hit hard, and hit often, grapple only when you have too!

[Ronson]

You're right, striking is a very effective and can be very efficient when fighting (if you train in an art with fully resisting opponents and spar and drill as realistically as possible - dishing out the hits, while able to some extent, take the hits aswell). Being a great stand-up/striker in a street confrontation where all the variables cannot be controlled or be known, it would be really to your folly to try to take the fight to the ground.

However, in a pure hand-to-hand, one-on-one situation, and pitting martial arts purists of striking and grappling/submission against each other, statistically speaking, the grappler will have the advantage. Now, remember I said a match between purists and not a striker with a firm grasp of takedown defence (i.e. early Cro-Crop) or both takedown defence and grappling (i.e. Chuck Lidell). Also keep in mind I said statistically speaking, because I'll freely admit it is in the realms of real possibility that the striker can and will win from time to time, however the numbers are against him/her.

Just watch some of the early UFC's (yeah, yeah, it was stacked in Gracie's favor to win, it has alot of tomato-cans competing, but it also has some legitamate pure strikers like Pat Smith and Orlando Weit.

[CKD]

A grappler can make a striker can play his game easier than a striker can get to play his game. Get a untrained friend, stand close to each other like you would be in a street confrontation, and have him attempt to clinch you. You will find it is easier for him to clinch and take you down than it is for you to back off and strike. Look at Royce in the UFC and you will see how easy it is for him to clinch against the skilled strikers he faced. He was able to easily defeat people who gave beatdowns to sumo wrestlers. Know take a look at todays modern sprawl and brawl competitors. Because they have taken the time to learn grappling they can block takedowns and clinches and help them stand up. Despite being able to block clinches and takedowns they still end up on the ground once during the match and they use there ground grappling skilll to either get into a position where they can stand up, wait for the ref to stand them up or at least keep the grappler in there guard where thay can do less damage.

[GrdStorm]

If you are studying the MA to purely learn how to fight, you need both however I see it this way:

An atheltic person/grappler who has some knowledge of striking (doesnt have to be training, just watches boxing, kicking boxing ect.) has a chance to "weather the storm" against a striker and possibly even get a KO. It is possible however the chances are slim that the the non-striker will beat the striker, but it can happen.

A striker on the other hand that gets stuck on the ground with a a grappler is totally dead. A fish out of water, there wont be any lucky flash KOs and it is extremely hard and close to impossible to defend against a grappler that is raining down strikes on you if you don't know how to defend them at all.

[IPON]

For competition I like both (performing and watching). But for self-defense you need striking, grappling, and weapons to be most effective. Remember: Hit first, hit hard, and hit often, grapple only when you have too!

Darr is correct for separating these points, I think this is the part where everyone drifts back and forth on topics of competition vs fighting/SD (Not really referring to this thread per se).

I think people assume far too much when it comes to a fight. Let's remember there are no stats for street fights, just sporting events. "well the NHB are the same thing" I guess if one wants to believe that. The issue is not which style is more effective it is which style will make you more effective. People can speak theory all they want, I will always maintain boxers are the most common and dangerous advisary on the street..period. Boxer are trained to KO and do it well. Boxing is the most limited MA so when you compare to any other MA it should never win but they do in real fights (MMA may be different). So If you are a pure striker then you should acknowlege the grappling arts by learning some to 1. prevent TDs and 2. if taken down get to your feet ASAP. If you are a pure grappler and do not learn decent boxing skills you are doing yourself a diservice.

Now if you are interested in MMA events that is different and I would say definately train both.

[IPON]

alot of tomato-cans competing

What is a "tomato can" ?????

[Ronson]

IPON,

A tomato-can is, as the "Rock" would say, a "jabroni," or a relative amateur or crappy fighter in comparison to the rest of the field of fighters. The type of fighter that Mike Tyson fights these days (just like the first fight he had when he got out of the joint - Peter McNeilly I think).

I actually agree with you partially in your point that having a Boxer's (I would even have to add in Muay Thai fighters) skills in the street, in hand-to-hand fighting, is very effective and dangerous in the street. Not to mention, stand-up fighting is favorable to grappling in the street due to the chaos and uncontrollable nature of a street fight.

However pound-for-pound, in a one-on-one, head-to-head battle between purists in a grappler/submission guy versus a striker (or boxer if you will) of relative equal skill, the odds fall dramatically against the striker (You might win in Las Vegas from time to time, but play long enough and the house always wins). One-on-one street fights still happen and if you think about it honestly, without ego, it is wayyyyy easier to get a clinch or tie-up than to get a knock-out (clinch = big, big, target / KO = small, right on the money target). If you didn't know that, you'd better ax sumbuddy.

[IPON]

However pound-for-pound, in a one-on-one, head-to-head battle between purists in a grappler/submission guy versus a striker (or boxer if you will) of relative equal skill, the odds fall dramatically against the striker

I understand from a clinical perspective I agree with you. However, its only in a clinical situation where you can make this assumption, you rarely have a "all things being equal" scenario in day to day reality. My point was simply not to confuse fights and sports. Just because a style on paper should work more does not mean it will or a person has the skill or the heart to make it work. All very vital components.

There is no ego, I am a grappler. But in response to the question of the thread, while people are capable of learning grappling - grappling is really not for everyone. So it is not so easy to say "oh grappling is the best learn it you will be the best" MT, boxing, even Karate or KF styles that use strikes and kicks there is no reason to assume someone should drop everything and run to a grappling gym.

Believe me odds and stats or meaningless when you are in a fight or SD situation...like Yoda either do or don't (you either can or can't win/loose). I do not fight with these assumptions e.g he's only a boxer no skills on the ground. I only that the opponent is a full range fighter. I am take to the ground but I have assumed ground skill.....if its not there my job is easy. So is it easier to get in a clinch before a hook finds a glass jaw?...... There is no right answer it is just a matter of perspective. just my 2 cents

[CKD]

Just watch some of the early UFC's (yeah, yeah, it was stacked in Gracie's favor to win, it has alot of tomato-cans competing, but it also has some legitamate pure strikers like Pat Smith and Orlando Weit.

Which ones were tomato cans besides Ettish? Shamrock was a Pancrase champion, Severn is a wrestling champ, Gordeu was a europen savate and kyoushinkai champion, Jimmerson was ranked 5th in some pro boxing association, Hackney was probaly the best White Tiger Kenpo fighter in his time and he beat up a giant who was the first American to win the All Japan tournament. Which ones did you think were bad.

[TylerDurden]

Top Ten Reasons to Learn Grappling.

10. All the kids are doing it.
9. Practice involves, getting mounted.
8. Sweat tastes good.
7. It hurts without leaving so many visible bruises.
6. Jean Claude has never done a movie about it.
5. Neither has Chuck Norris.
4. "Judo" Gene LeBell is a bad mother....
3. It's fun to make people tap.
2. Two words, REAR MOUNT.
And the number one reason to learn to grapple....
1. Because Helio Graice said so!

[Ronson]

CKD, thanks for your respone dude.

The tomato cans I am speaking of (I'm not gonna mention every one throughout the early UFC's - just watch and you'll spot them) might have been tops in their field of martial arts (did you really mention Jimmerson? Shite, boxing is full of different councils and a top 5 ranking in some shatsy federation means shite and for G D's sake, the man wore one glove to the octogon!) and no doubt bad-ashhes in their own right, but when compared to other competitors who typically train full contact and with resisting opponents (forgive me if I didn't mention Shammy, Severn, ...) in the early UFC's and surely against today's MMA athletes, there would be concensus that they were tomoto-cans (tomato-cans is a relative term when compared to the field of competitors - I am not saying they were not tough at all, in fact in takes alot of testicular fortitude to get in their, lay it all on the line, and compete)


Later, and I welcome your input and discussion man.

[Ronson]

Hey IPON thanks for your response dude.

I agree with you that some people just don't have the knack for grappling (you just roll with some newbies and you just know hey? Not bc they're inexperienced, just by the way they move and their frustrated response to it (as opposed to wanting to learn more)).

I'm the same way, when back in the day when I was a hoodlum. When in a street-fight, I too don't assume anything (assumption has a way of making an ass(umption) out of people). I'm not overly worried about my opponents skills (although gather as much intel if possible and I will assess his approx. height, weight, and his posture and stance to see if he favors anything or exposes any weakness I may be able to capitalize on). In fact I make sure I give the MO-FO my all - that's all i can do and all I can control, right?

I will take you to task on one thing you said though, in which you contradict yourself (I realize these are 1st draft posts). When I mention that it is easier (technically and percentage wise - think about the typical ratio of clinches before a KO (if it even happens) in your average boxing match) to get a clinch than a KO, I was mentioning a fact - not an opinion. When someone is in front of you, there is a large physical target in front of you in comparison to a smalller target (a distinct difference in area of mass - very real). And when you mention what if he has a "glass jaw," are you not making an ASSUMPTION? With me, I don't care if he has a glass jaw or not, if the opportunity presents itself I'm gonna crack him and if a shoot, slam, or submission presents itself I'm gonna take it too.

[kiddbjj]

pure striker vs pure grappler in a one on one, of course the grappler will have a better chance percentage wise. One reason guys... gravity. once he gets a clinch or any kind of lame tackle unless the striker can keep balance gravity will always win. I used to do a pure striking style and when sparring a better partner sometimes i'd just get the shits and tackle him to the ground. it totally throws people because their preffered range for sparring gets thrown out the window.

[IPON]

I'm the same way, when back in the day when I was a hoodlum. When in a street-fight, I too don't assume anything (assumption has a way of making an ass(umption) out of people). I'm not overly worried about my opponents skills (although gather as much intel if possible and I will assess his approx. height, weight, and his posture and stance to see if he favors anything or exposes any weakness I may be able to capitalize on). In fact I make sure I give the MO-FO my all - that's all i can do and all I can control, right?

Exactly

And when you mention what if he has a "glass jaw," are you not making an ASSUMPTION? With me, I don't care if he has a glass jaw or not, if the opportunity presents itself I'm gonna crack him and if a shoot, slam, or submission presents itself I'm gonna take it too.

Technically not an assumption since I indicated if he has a glass jaw......not He will have a glass jaw . just goofing but I understand your point I was just being sarcastic and also making a point that it seems a bigger object so the clinch is there (in a fight not the ring) but my point was not to completely disagree but a solid hook against someone who can't close the distance quickly and are not used to getting punched in the face makes a big difference. This is where people loose to boxers one tap can make you pause and that enough for the combo and KO.