# Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?



## Ironbear24

I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.

When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.

I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.

People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.

I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.

Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.

It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?

It is a case of ignorance?


----------



## drop bear

Observation mostly.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Observation mostly.



From where? If we want to consider UFC I see tons of fighters winning via TKO.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Well honestly what you are asking does not make much sense to me. However, I have taught striking to a judo club, which resulted in me learning judo (I was never given a rank since I taught striking but practiced for ~3 years). What ken/mpo teaches for close range is incredibly effective, so long as you know how to deal with grappling. However, most people once they know how to deal with grappling ignore striking in that range, This is why, IMHO, you may see the focus of grappling in MMA.

From my own experience with grapplers and strikers, the grapplers dont think that they are better, but rather that if they can close the distance they will win. If you show them this is not the case (assuming you know how to strike close distance against grapplers) they acknowledge it and are willing to learn striking. Once again, this paragraph is purely from my experience, and should not be generalized to grapplers as a whole.


----------



## Langenschwert

It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.

Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble.  As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.

There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.

In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> From where? If we want to consider UFC I see tons of fighters winning via TKO.



Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.

The concepts get a bit weird here.

They are kind of opposing concepts and are technically really bad for each other.

So when you strike you are vulnerable to grappling when you grapple you are vulnerable to striking.

The issue is the striking range is harder to maintain when you see strikers fight they cannot maintain that range for more than a few secondss until they are either two close or too far.

A grappler can maintain his range longer and so is at an advantage more often.

A grappler is also at advantage going forwards which is just structurally easier to do.

It is also easier to get a take down than to ko someone.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Langenschwert said:


> It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.
> 
> Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble.  As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.
> 
> There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.
> 
> In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.


I would disagree with this. From what you said, you're assuming that the striker only has one range to attack from. Lets say they start from mid range, thats the first chance. Now the grappler enters distance, but as they do, you push them back to mid range, giving you a second chance. Then they close distance again; they are in close distance but there is always a slight bit of time before they get their throw off. If you are used to grapplers, you now have a third chance. So there are your 2-3 chances right there. More if you learned takedown defence and are able to stay standing and striking as they attempt to take you down. Standup with grappling defense, IMO is one of the most effective things to learn Self-defense wise. It gets you out of most situations, excluding an MMA opponent, and even if you include MMA, if the opponent hasn't done proper strength training you will still most likely be fine overall.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.
> 
> The concepts get a bit weird here.
> 
> They are kind of opposing concepts and are technically really bad for each other.
> 
> So when you strike you are vulnerable to grappling when you grapple you are vulnerable to striking.
> 
> The issue is the striking range is harder to maintain when you see strikers fight they cannot maintain that range for more than a few secondss until they are either two close or too far.
> 
> A grappler can maintain his range longer and so is at an advantage more often.
> 
> A grappler is also at advantage going forwards which is just structurally easier to do.
> 
> It is also easier to get a take down than to ko someone.


So I agree with what you are saying overall, especially with your statement that a striker can't remain in a range for more than a few seconds. 
If we assume that there are four ranges (long, medium, close, grappling), would you consider it effective to teach striking in each of those four ranges, along with how to transition between them? I understand that getting thrown would ruin any of these, but if someone can transition between the four ranges that I listed and generally transition between them without issue, would you admit that this is better than grappling overall for self defense?


----------



## Kenpoguy123

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


Because of ufc fanboys who don't understand anything else. Yes jiu jitsu was very effective against every style in 1993 but look at Gracie vs Hughes same weight and Hughes style was wrestling so it should be easy for Gracie to sub him but he never tried 1 submission. Basically the sport passed him by. All the old ufc and those videos of Gracie were against people who'd never heard of jiu jitsu these days people know the style even if you never trained you know what an arm bar is or a triangle. All the talk about striking being useless is nonsense look at the ufc stipe miocic is a former boxer, Jon jones was originally a wrestler but most of his success is due to his striking now, robbie lawlor a straight up brawler, connor mcgreggor a striker with awful wrestling and jiu jitsu, Dominic cruz former wrestler but mainly strikes these days. All ufc champions where striking is their base

Also plenty of former champs as strikers bas rutten, chuck liddel, rampage Jackson, forest griffin, shogun, lyoto machida, Anderson silva, anthony pettis all people who have had great success with striking backgrounds


----------



## kuniggety

kempodisciple said:


> I would disagree with this. From what you said, you're assuming that the striker only has one range to attack from. Lets say they start from mid range, thats the first chance. Now the grappler enters distance, but as they do, you push them back to mid range, giving you a second chance. Then they close distance again; they are in close distance but there is always a slight bit of time before they get their throw off. If you are used to grapplers, you now have a third chance. So there are your 2-3 chances right there. More if you learned takedown defence and are able to stay standing and striking as they attempt to take you down. Standup with grappling defense, IMO is one of the most effective things to learn Self-defense wise. It gets you out of most situations, excluding an MMA opponent, and even if you include MMA, if the opponent hasn't done proper strength training you will still most likely be fine overall.


 
Transitioning out of grappling range is very difficult, no matter how much you train. I think it's easier to classify your long, medium, close, grappling as kicking, punching, knee/elbow, clinch/grapple. A person moving forward and closing the distance can move faster and much easier than a person moving backwards can without losing their balance or footing. This is effectively the strength of the "shoot". Your sprawl better be on point because simply trying to open the distance back to punching or kicking distance is going to land you on the grown. Each has their strengths. If I'm surrounded by three people, I'm not taking a guy to the ground as that's folly even though I feel confident with my BJJ. However, standing there trading punches with someone stronger or with a longer reach is going to land me in a world of hurt. Weight classes are there for a reason in striking arts. They use them in Grappling but you can see a lighter person winning in absolute divisions where a lighter weight will most likely get knocked the hell out by a heavy weight. A skilled grappler can effectively minimize, but not negate, a strength disadvantage.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> So I agree with what you are saying overall, especially with your statement that a striker can't remain in a range for more than a few seconds.
> If we assume that there are four ranges (long, medium, close, grappling), would you consider it effective to teach striking in each of those four ranges, along with how to transition between them? I understand that getting thrown would ruin any of these, but if someone can transition between the four ranges that I listed and generally transition between them without issue, would you admit that this is better than grappling overall for self defense?



Self defence is a different equation. At which point you should know both grappling and striking.


----------



## Buka

"Why do people think...."

Probably for the same reason people think there's a dark side of the moon. 

I blame Pink Floyd.


----------



## Hanzou

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Because of ufc fanboys who don't understand anything else. Yes jiu jitsu was very effective against every style in 1993 but look at Gracie vs Hughes same weight and Hughes style was wrestling so it should be easy for Gracie to sub him but he never tried 1 submission. Basically the sport passed him by. All the old ufc and those videos of Gracie were against people who'd never heard of jiu jitsu these days people know the style even if you never trained you know what an arm bar is or a triangle. All the talk about striking being useless is nonsense look at the ufc stipe miocic is a former boxer, Jon jones was originally a wrestler but most of his success is due to his striking now, robbie lawlor a straight up brawler, connor mcgreggor a striker with awful wrestling and jiu jitsu, Dominic cruz former wrestler but mainly strikes these days. All ufc champions where striking is their base
> 
> Also plenty of former champs as strikers bas rutten, chuck liddel, rampage Jackson, forest griffin, shogun, lyoto machida, Anderson silva, anthony pettis all people who have had great success with striking backgrounds



They had success in striking because they're highly skilled in grappling and can stuff takedown attempts. Hell, Silva and Machida are both black belts in Bjj from Brazil, so it's not like you're dealing with pure strikers. One look at the first Silva vs Sonnen fight will confirm that for anyone.

The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.

Ironbear, no one has ever said that grapplers always beat strikers. However, (all things being equal) pure grapplers do tend to have an advantage over pure strikers for a variety of reasons.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> They had success in striking because they're highly skilled in grappling and can stuff takedown attempts. Hell, Silva and Machida are both black belts in Bjj from Brazil, so it's not like you're dealing with pure strikers. One look at the first Silva vs Sonnen fight will confirm that for anyone.
> 
> The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.
> 
> Ironbear, no one has ever said that grapplers always beat strikers. However, (all things being equal) pure grapplers do tend to have an advantage over pure strikers for a variety of reasons.



You also have to change your striking style of combat grapplers.it is different than the one used against strikers.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.



I think people tend to forget that. 

MMA at any level, is one tough sport. UFC level is, perhaps, the most difficult fighting competition that has ever been around in modern times. You can't just train your art, regardless of what your art is, you have to prepare for so much more. And even when you do, that other fella across the cage has, too.

What I find so enjoyable about UFC fighting is how many ways there are to win and lose in each and every match.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.


Yep!


drop bear said:


> You also have to change your striking style of combat grapplers.it is different than the one used against strikers.


^^^^^^^ This.


----------



## Phobius

Grapplers learn striking. Strikers learn grappling.

Grappling was a game where most people had no experience before but don't think that is the case anymore. 

Striking most people have the basic of from TV,  school or whatnot already, grappler or not.


----------



## Andrew Green

Because it is a lot easier to teach a wrestler to cover up enough to get a hold of you, and once you go down you're not getting back up unless you are trained in it then it is to teach a striker to avoid takedowns and do enough damage to disable you.  And you can see that in early UFC, as well as lower tier MMA.  If one guy is determined to take it to the ground, unless the other guy is a good wrestler it's going to end up on the ground.  They might get hit a couple times before it does, and occasionally get caught and KOed, but most of the time it's going to go to the ground.


----------



## mograph

A simplistic analysis for your approval: I think it may be about the size and contact time of the contact area. 

A striking weapon (body part: fist, foot, elbow) is relatively small and contacts the opponent for a short period of time. It also has to be retracted in order to strike again. While a hit can be very effective, its nature (quick and small) narrows its _odds_ of contacting its target. 
On the other hand, grappling uses a larger surface area (body, arms, legs), and is in contact for a longer period of time, allowing more time to find a way to affect an opponent. Yes, there are risks when in such close contact, but I think that grappling may be a higher _percentage_ play in a sporting context.

It's just a theory that came from reading some of these posts, and I have no idea if it has any merit.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


Most people gravitate to wrestling and grappling for the simple reason you aren't getting hit in the face. No one likes to get punched in the face, but if you are training a striking art then it's going to happen.  If you speak to most people who don't train in fighting, you'll see that they cringe at the thought of being hit.  Many will even tell you they don't want to get it.  They don't want to feel that pain of being hit and then getting hit again.  When you are on the ground wrestling then the striking for the most part is taken out of the equation which means you aren't going to receive a lot of damage from striking unless your oppoent in ground and pound mode.

Most of the people who are getting on your nerves about this are people who are fans of MMA and not actually fighters or people who train a martial arts. Unfortunately there's not much you can do about people like that. Let them live in their fantasy world.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> I would disagree with this. From what you said, you're assuming that the striker only has one range to attack from. Lets say they start from mid range, thats the first chance. Now the grappler enters distance, but as they do, you push them back to mid range, giving you a second chance. Then they close distance again; they are in close distance but there is always a slight bit of time before they get their throw off. If you are used to grapplers, you now have a third chance. So there are your 2-3 chances right there. More if you learned takedown defence and are able to stay standing and striking as they attempt to take you down. Standup with grappling defense, IMO is one of the most effective things to learn Self-defense wise. It gets you out of most situations, excluding an MMA opponent, and even if you include MMA, if the opponent hasn't done proper strength training you will still most likely be fine overall.


if you have the skills to defend the takedown, aren't you at that point grappling?


----------



## oftheherd1

Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?

Confusing question.  Who are these 'people?'  grapplers? strikers?  couch jockeys watching a bout on TV?


----------



## Buka

mograph said:


> A simplistic analysis for your approval: I think it may be about the size and contact time of the contact area.
> 
> A striking weapon (body part: fist, foot, elbow) is relatively small and contacts the opponent for a short period of time. It also has to be retracted in order to strike again. While a hit can be very effective, its nature (quick and small) narrows its _odds_ of contacting its target.
> On the other hand, grappling uses a larger surface area (body, arms, legs), and is in contact for a longer period of time, allowing more time to find a way to affect an opponent. Yes, there are risks when in such close contact, but I think that grappling may be a higher _percentage_ play in a sporting context.
> 
> It's just a theory that came from reading some of these posts, and I have no idea if it has any merit.



Never thought like that before. That's fascinating, pretty darn smart, too.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> if you have the skills to defend the takedown, aren't you at that point grappling?



It depends how you defend against it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Langenschwert said:


> It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.
> 
> Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble.  As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.
> 
> There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.
> 
> In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.


Here's a striker that shows a different side to your statement.  Look what happens when someone tries to grapple with this guy.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> They had success in striking because they're highly skilled in grappling and can stuff takedown attempts. Hell, Silva and Machida are both black belts in Bjj from Brazil, so it's not like you're dealing with pure strikers. One look at the first Silva vs Sonnen fight will confirm that for anyone.
> 
> The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.
> 
> Ironbear, no one has ever said that grapplers always beat strikers. However, (all things being equal) pure grapplers do tend to have an advantage over pure strikers for a variety of reasons.



I didn't draw this conclusion from this forum, here it is pretty unanimous that BOTH are necessary when it comes to martial arts. This is more coming from couch potatoes who wear tap out shirts and think watching UFC makes them some sort of crucible when it comes to judging an art. 

I had a couple of conversations with guys like this, they ask me if I weight lift then ask if I'm a boxer or something. I say no I practice kenpo and Shou Shu and a bit of Judo. They then go "what the hell is that?" So I explain its a form of karate, it's like kickboxing I guess. Then they immediately go pfft you're wasting your time and money just do wrestling. You can't punch and kick when you are on the floor being slapped around.

Now obviously this person has no authority to judge what I do, because if he asks me "what the hell is that? Then he doesn't know the styles at all, that alone means don't pass any sort of judgement on it whether it be a good or bad one since you know zilch about it.

I argued with the guy which was my mistake, to him my years of real martial arts experiences didn't mean anything compared to his years of watching it on TV. I said something like well they have to be able to grab me without getting punched in the face. Then it went into "well look at UFC." 

If striking was so obsolete or something no one would be doing it, clearly both striking and grappling have their value and nobody does well with just one and not the other.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> So I agree with what you are saying overall, especially with your statement that a striker can't remain in a range for more than a few seconds.
> If we assume that there are four ranges (long, medium, close, grappling), would you consider it effective to teach striking in each of those four ranges, along with how to transition between them? I understand that getting thrown would ruin any of these, but if someone can transition between the four ranges that I listed and generally transition between them without issue, would you admit that this is better than grappling overall for self defense?


striking has 3 ranges. Long, medium, and short. Just because a person is close enough to grab a striker doesn't mean the striker doesn't have close range striking techniques that can be used.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JowGaWolf said:


> striking has 4 ranges. Long, medium, and short. Just because a person is close enough to grab a striker doesn't mean the striker doesn't have close range striking techniques that can be used.


For the grappling stage, I didn't mean that grappling is the only option, but being in the prime distance for grappling.


----------



## kuniggety

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's a striker that shows a different side to your statement.  Look what happens when someone tries to grapple with this guy.



True MT practitioners are not pure strikers. Clinch fighting and trips/throws from the clinch are integral. It's obvious he has some ground fighting training going for things like RNC which aren't in traditional MT. But anyways, he said it's not always the case. The striker can just plain be better at his art than the grappler. In a one on one setting, grappling just has distinct advantages.


----------



## JowGaWolf

kempodisciple said:


> For the grappling stage, I didn't mean that grappling is the only option, but being in the prime distance for grappling.


got yah.  I misunderstood the context


----------



## JowGaWolf

kuniggety said:


> True MT practitioners are not pure strikers. Clinch fighting and trips/throws from the clinch are integral. It's obvious he has some ground fighting training going for things like RNC which aren't in traditional MT. But anyways, he said it's not always the case. The striker can just plain be better at his art than the grappler. In a one on one setting, grappling just has distinct advantages.


I agree. This is true for a lot of Martial Art systems.  There is an assumption that that striking martial arts don't have grappling techniques in the system and that assumption is mainly because there are martial art instructors that either just don't focus on that component of the system or they don't know it. The only difference is that there are grappling techniques that allow a striker to better utilize his striking skills and then there are grappling techniques that are designed to take away striking advantages.  If you notice with the striking arts that utilize their traditional grappling techniques, the striker will remain standing or at least be in a dominant position.  But with other grappling systems that aren't focused on striking, they techniques often are worked on the ground where the striker is at a disadvantage.  Even in the video the striker had to remain standing in order to use striking techniques even while grappling.  Once he was on the ground his striking stopped until he could gain an on top dominate position.


----------



## hoshin1600

Buka said:


> "Why do people think...."
> 
> Probably for the same reason people think there's a dark side of the moon.
> 
> I blame Pink Floyd.



There is no dark side of the moon really.....matter of fact it's all dark.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.



I think a short trip through fairly recent history will serve to explain why many people have this perception...

Prior to UFC and similar type fighting, there was boxing, and uh, boxing.   I mean on TV and cable, as mass-media entertainment.  There was also 'wrestling', but most adults understood that this was entertainment only, and not true competition.

Then UFC came along and things changed.  Suddenly, the barroom brawlers and street fighters and so on had a place to go and be seen and maybe even make some money.  The fighters charged in, and some of them began to win consistently.

It was during this time, as I understand it, that the grapplers began to show up, and they pretty much dominated the stand-up punchers and kickers.  It didn't take long before the street fighters had to learn to grapple, or they did not survive in the ring.

This, I believe, led to a common misconception as to whether grappling was 'better' than stand-up fighting for any given purpose.

It was certainly better for the environment of the UFC and similar ventures.  Clearly.

That does NOT mean it is better for all environments.  Quite simply, when some pal of a guy being grappled walks up and kicks the grappler repeatedly in the noggin, as one often-used example.

But the public is a sack of stupid, covered in ignorance, sprinkled with idiocy.  Simply put, most people are booger-eatin' morons.  They believe what is in front of their faces, they don't do deep thinking.  It hurts their brains.

So they prattle on about how this is superior to that, and they know 'cause they saw it on a PPV event or on Youtube or World-Star-HipHop Video or whatever.

I pay them no mind.  You should not either.  You can't change their minds, that's not what idiots do.  They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.  Let it go.


----------



## Buka

hoshin1600 said:


> There is no dark side of the moon really.....matter of fact it's all dark.



That's why I blame Pink Floyd....and not green cheese.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts? *

Because it's possible to develop "anti-striking". It's very difficult (or impossible) to develop "anti-grappling".

For example, a

- wrestler with 6 month of "anti-striking" training can be used to deal with a boxer.
- boxer with 6 month of "anti-grappling" training is not good enough to be used to deal with a wrestler.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts? *
> 
> Because it's possible to develop "anti-striking". It's very difficult (or impossible) to develop "anti-grappling".
> 
> For example, a
> 
> - wrestler with 6 month of "anti-striking" training can be used to deal with a boxer.
> - boxer with 6 month of "anti-grappling" training is not good enough to be used to deal with a wrestler.



Well that's a biased example since boxers train to fight other boxers. Boxing only takes into account punching and dealing with another boxers punches.


----------



## hoshin1600

I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm" 
So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> Well that's a biased example since boxers train to fight other boxers. Boxing only takes into account punching and dealing with another boxers punches.


In general, boxer's anti-takedown ability is weaker than grappler's anti-striking ability. If you can protect your head well, it's not hard to move into a boxer, obtain a clinch, without been punched on the head.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> You can't punch and kick when you are on the floor being slapped around.



Who can't? I've seen a very nice KO from a fighter on the ground kicking. You can certainly punch, you can use hammer fists, back fists, elbows, all nice strikes from the floor. Being 'slapped' doesn't hurt nearly as much as being punched so it's nothing really.
Striking doesn't stop when you hit the ground and grappling doesn't start when you hit the ground.


----------



## JowGaWolf

hoshin1600 said:


> I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
> If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm"
> So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.


It may be just me, but I've been noticing a trend in the UFC where the fighters aren't as willing to accept going to the ground as an ultimate truth.  It appears that many fighters are getting better at not being taken to the ground and if they are taken to the ground, they don't stay there for long, in comparison to how the UFC used to be.


----------



## Hanzou

hoshin1600 said:


> I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
> If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm"
> So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.



This again, really?

People thought Bjj was better because they saw multiple examples of the Gracies beating every type of fighter imaginable. It wasn't just the UFC, it was also the Gracie challenge tapes, Rickson fighting in Japan, and multiple other examples.

It wasn't because they said so, it was because the Gracies stepped up and put their style to the test.

Let's also not forget that 20 years later, Bjj is STILL a mainstay of MMA.


----------



## Andrew Green

JowGaWolf said:


> It may be just me, but I've been noticing a trend in the UFC where the fighters aren't as willing to accept going to the ground as an ultimate truth.  It appears that many fighters are getting better at not being taken to the ground and if they are taken to the ground, they don't stay there for long, in comparison to how the UFC used to be.



Kick boxers found success a long time ago.  Maurice Smith, a kick boxer, took the title from Mark Coleman, a wrestler way back in UFC 14.

But he had to go and learn enough about wrestling to be able to do that.  

Really what it comes down to is on the ground you can except a much higher level of control over your opponent.  Put a untrained person against a high level grappler on the ground and they aren't going anywhere without getting themselves in deeper.  In stand up even with fairly basic training you can learn to cover up and clinch in a way that will be relatively effective pretty quickly.  Getting off the bottom against a high level grappler is a lot harder then getting ahold of a striker.

I've seen plenty of matches where guys with terrible striking just push forward through it to get a grip and then take it to the mat, once on top they have enough dominance that the other guys isn't getting out.

Same for not staying down once down, that's been around a long time.  Chuck Liddell was known for being near impossible to keep down 15 years ago.  He id it because he was a high level wrestler, who preferred to stand and punch in fights.

The big difference between now and then in the UFC is that just about everyone is fairly well rounded.  That and "performance" matters a little more... the 30 min stalemates in guard that used to happen would not be tolerated anymore.  Even high level fighters like John Fitch and Ben Askren have a hard time because there style is not "fan friendly".  The size of the sport has made money more of a factor, which means putting on a show is important as well as fighting.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
> If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm"
> So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.


it wasn't Rickson. It was rorian. And advertising a product is completely independent of whether it functions as advertised or not. People sell things all the time that do exactly what they say it does in the ads.


----------



## drop bear

Andrew Green said:


> Same for not staying down once down, that's been around a long time. Chuck Liddell was known for being near impossible to keep down 15 years ago. He id it because he was a high level wrestler, who preferred to stand and punch in fights.



As people get better at defending submissions they have more capacity to hit without getting caught.

So laying on your back and trying to create an opportunity becomes higher risk.

So the rules of dominant position change a bit for mma. In that a guy on his back is in trouble regardless as to whether he has pulled guard or not.

So the general rule of thumb is get back up.

Our guys are choosing turtle over guard after an escape. So that we can escape more easily.


----------



## Buka

hoshin1600 said:


> I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
> If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm"
> So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.



The Gracies sure do have a grand promotional machine. Well oiled, that puppy.

But, bro, I was around before the UFC. Rickson was my instructor before the UFC was even a gleam in Art Davie's eye. I don't remember any video tapes of Rickson in the 1980's. Rorion Gracie, sure, but not Rickson.

I can tell you, unequivocally, that Rickson is the nicest gentleman I've known in Martial Arts and I've known quite a few. (some of whom you know) You would really like him. I can also tell you he's the best fighter I've ever known, period. And that's out of a fairly big sample size. I know, I'm "teacher defending". Damn right I am.

As for purple cool aid....I really like purple kool aid.


----------



## hoshin1600

Yes I stand corrected it was Rorion.  I was going off memory rather than look it up.
I should state I have nothing against BJJ. I really enjoy it. I think it's a great style and it is effective at what it does.
However the question was asked ..let me re phrase it to my understanding of the question...."why is there a perception that BJJ grappling will consistently beat a striker"
Answer...because of the marketing.
It has already been pointed out that many of the biggest names in UFC are known for striking.
I think if a study was done the statistics would show that there is no evidence to prove this perception.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> it wasn't Rickson. It was rorian. And advertising a product is completely independent of whether it functions as advertised or not. People sell things all the time that do exactly what they say it does in the ads.


Again..I am not saying grappling is not effective.  But advertising does have a major impact on how BJJ is perceived by the unknowing non martial artist public . Those first impressions will stick and then that person will join a BJJ or MMA gym and continually reinforce that idea that his style is the best.
When asked many many MA will say their particular style is the best. We all see it quite often right here on this forum. Many of us know that it's the fighter not the style..so why then is this topic any different.


----------



## Steve

hoshin1600 said:


> Yes I stand corrected it was Rorion.  I was going off memory rather than look it up.
> I should state I have nothing against BJJ. I really enjoy it. I think it's a great style and it is effective at what it does.
> However the question was asked ..let me re phrase it to my understanding of the question...."why is there a perception that BJJ grappling will consistently beat a striker"
> Answer...because of the marketing.
> It has already been pointed out that many of the biggest names in UFC are known for striking.
> I think if a study was done the statistics would show that there is no evidence to prove this perception.


how did grappling become synonymous with bjj?  The question wasn't what you're saying.   It was, "why do people think grappling will blah, blah, blah."    While all Bjj is grapplinG, not all grappling is BJJ.  

And once again, efficacy and advertising are not the same things.   Wing chun is what it is due to advertising.   Tkd is what it is because of advertising.   Whether they work or not is irrelevant.   Of course, establishing efficacy helps sell the product.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> how did grappling become synonymous with bjj?  The question wasn't what you're saying.   It was, "why do people think grappling will blah, blah, blah."    While all Bjj is grapplinG, not all grappling is BJJ.
> 
> And once again, efficacy and advertising are not the same things.   Wing chun is what it is due to advertising.   Tkd is what it is because of advertising.   Whether they work or not is irrelevant.   Of course, establishing efficacy helps sell the product.


grappling became BJJ because i was typing on my phone and its easier to type.  and because BJJ is the most known.


----------



## hoshin1600

so lets look at the stats shall we.

MOST WINS IN TITLE BOUTS,
George st-pierre--12
anderson silva--11
jon jones--10
randy couture--9
matt hughes--9
demetious johnson--9
jose aldo--7
tito ortiz--6
ronda rousey--6
bj penn--5
tim sylvia--5
chuch liddell--5
pat miletich--5
frank shamrock--5

LONGEST REIGNING CHAMPIONS
1-anderson silva
2-st- pierre
3-jose aldo
4-jon jones
5-demitious johnson
6-tito ortiz
7-dominic cruz
8-ronda rousey
9-pat miletich
10-cain velasquez

you all can decide who won by striking and who won by submission or decision.


----------



## hoshin1600

Steve said:


> And once again, efficacy and advertising are not the same things.





Steve said:


> The question wasn't what you're saying. It was,



TITLE OF THREAD,
"why do people think grappling arts ALWAYS beat striking arts"

i am not sure what your point or argument is steve.
efficacy is not part of this equation for me.  the question was NOT will grappling beat striking or CAN it beat striking by why do people "THINK' it will always beat striking.
common sense and the record will show it will not ALWAYS beat striking. but the OP question implies that people believe that it will there fore there is a perception that does not match reality and i propose that it is because of marketing.  
feel free to disagree it is only my reasoning.


----------



## Don Johnson

It seems that the majority are contributing based on a sport scenario.  In real life violence on the street, where multiple attackers and weapons are common, you better be a striker, you better get good at staying on your feet, and you better know enough on the ground to hurt the guy and get up as soon as possible.  I love the video of the grappler in the mount exercising ground and pound on his opponent while exclaiming his superiority, then the victim's girlfriend comes up and soccer kicks the "champion" in the head and knocks him out. 

In sport, devastating strikes to vulnerable targets are forbidden to minimize injury both while standing, and while on the ground.  A few people mentioned people don't like to get hit.  That is very true.  Now imagine that the striking is not simply a moment of discomfort and potential KO.  Imagine the strikes include life changing targets such as thumbs in the eyes, strikes to throat, neck, spine, groin without protection, sides of the knees.  By the way, biting is ok too.  I'm not sure if biting is considered striking or grappling...  By the way, striking includes sticks, knives, bottles and bricks, even ballistics.  Sure you want to rely on grappling for self defense, and the protection of your family?


----------



## SenseiHitman

Yin and Yang are not antagonistic they are complimentary.  They are two parts of the same thing. Like the front and back of a door.  He who does not understand one does not totally understand the other.  Both grappelers and strikers apply many of the same concepts to get leverage on their opponent.  For example, in jujitsu the opponents momentum is used to add power to the throw just like allowing the attackers momentum to add power to a strike.   So why do some people think grappling works better than striking?  It is partly because of the rules in most MMA fights.  In the typical MMA fight, the rules allow the grappeler to use just about everything he practices in the dojo, however, many of fight stopping targets struck in self defense are forbidden, and the gloves the fighters wear take the edge of the strikers weapons,  but nothing softens the application of leverage the grappelers use,  If the BJJ guys were limited to Judo rules and their leverage was padded like the karate guys who are limited by kickboxing  type rules, I suspect the fights would be more balanced. I must also say, when the fights were first popular the BJJ guys had a history of similar events to draw experience from before the UFC came along, and to their credit, they train very hard and are in top condition.  So yeah, a fighter with more background, who is in better condition with rules slanted to his favor will have an advantage.  What I really love about MMA is it got the so called karate gurus feathers in a ruffle, they had to scramble and learn something real so they could maintain their guru status.  In my opinion, every healthy young martial arts practitioner should compete in some sort of full contact fight at least a couple times.  We all have a coward inside us we need to learn to confront and manage in times of high stress.  Full contact fights can give a student an environment to face and practice subduing the inner coward without losing his life over it.  I know this because full contact fighting helped do that for me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It wasn't because they said so, it was because the Gracies stepped up and put their style to the test.



And they put it on video and showed it to everyone they could for a specific purpose. Putting out videos of them losing challenge matches would not suit that purpose. Most martial arts schools and practitioners neither wanted to nor needed to put out challenge videos to promote their art.



Hanzou said:


> Let's also not forget that 20 years later, Bjj is STILL a mainstay of MMA.



So is the striking art of Muay Thai.


----------



## Kenpoguy123

hoshin1600 said:


> I feel every one is over thinking this.  People think BJJ is better because the Gracie promotional machine "said so".
> If you were around before UFC  you may remember Rickson Gracie adds in magazines like black belt trying to promote his video tapes that were all the rage in technology back in the late 80,s. Then to promote it further he made the UFC. And wow by chance they won "things that make you go humm"
> So people still quote Ricksons add, 90% of fights go to the ground, and BJJ will beat a striker every time. So if you believe BJJ is the best and is better, congratulations you drank the purple cool aid.


Maybe 90% of fights do go to the ground but 100% start standing. The fact is jiu jitsu is a great martial but it's not perfect nothing is. Jiu jitsu absolutely works but so does every other style. Let's be real here the early ufcs were worked in the Gracie's favour look at his first ever opponent it was pathetic. He only fought the tougher ones later in the tournament and look at when he retired from ufc when he was getting harder fights and struggling more. The ufc was made to show how great the Gracie's were. A Gracie owned the ufc, the main referee was Gracie's student. Again this isn't disrespecting the art I have a lot of respect for it but the early ufcs were basically just commercials for the Gracie's


----------



## Jaeimseu

Maybe people think grapplers will win because strikers are apparently ineffective if they aren't allowed to gouge out eyes or strike "forbidden" targets with techniques too dangerous for the ring. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And they put it on video and showed it to everyone they could for a specific purpose. Putting out videos of them losing challenge matches would not suit that purpose. Most martial arts schools and practitioners neither wanted to nor needed to put out challenge videos to promote their art.



Yeah, because most MA schools utilize fancy kicks and forms in order to wow the crowds.  It was fairly easy to market TKD for example because you had those beautiful aerial and spinning kicks to show off.

People aren't going to naturally flock to a grappling style where you're on the ground in missionary position with your legs wrapped around your opponent's waist. You have to prove that doing weird stuff like that works, or no one is going to come to your school.



> So is the striking art of Muay Thai.



Not as much as Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Maybe 90% of fights do go to the ground but 100% start standing. The fact is jiu jitsu is a great martial but it's not perfect nothing is. Jiu jitsu absolutely works but so does every other style. Let's be real here the early ufcs were worked in the Gracie's favour look at his first ever opponent it was pathetic. He only fought the tougher ones later in the tournament and look at when he retired from ufc when he was getting harder fights and struggling more. The ufc was made to show how great the Gracie's were. A Gracie owned the ufc, the main referee was Gracie's student. Again this isn't disrespecting the art I have a lot of respect for it but the early ufcs were basically just commercials for the Gracie's



Art Jimmerson was a golden gloves middle weight champion boxer. When he fought Royce Gracie his boxing record was 29-5. I'd hardly consider that "pathetic".

It's also important to note that over 20 years later, not a single person has ever come forward to say that the first UFCs were rigged in any way.


----------



## Kenpoguy123

Hanzou said:


> Art Jimmerson was a golden gloves middle weight champion boxer. When he fought Royce Gracie his boxing record was 29-5. I'd hardly consider that "pathetic".
> 
> It's also important to note that over 20 years later, not a single person has ever come forward to say that the first UFCs were rigged in any way.


Yeah and he came in there with 1 boxing glove. He did that for the money nothing else he tapped before anything happened


----------



## Hanzou

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Yeah and he came in there with 1 boxing glove. He did that for the money nothing else he tapped before anything happened



Did you actually watch the fight? He wore one glove because he was still boxing and didn't want to damage his jabbing hand. He tapped because Gracie was on top and was using his upper chest to suffocate him while also punching him in the face. Jimmerson couldn't roll him off of him because he had zero grappling experience.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


Enjoy.

And yeah he did it for the money. All professional fighters do it for the money.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, because most MA schools utilize fancy kicks and forms in order to wow the crowds.


Depends on the school. Showing fancy kicks and spectacular aerial kicks at a demonstration designed to gain students can be detrimental as many people will decide not to join because they think it is too difficult and that they will never be able to do them.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Depends on the school. Showing fancy kicks and spectacular aerial kicks at a demonstration designed to gain students can be detrimental as many people will decide not to join because they think it is too difficult and that they will never be able to do them.



I never said such tactics would appeal to everyone. I'm saying that its easier to "sell" a MA to ignorant masses when you have people doing fancy stuff. Hence why so many children enjoy watching Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles.

Bjj never had that advantage, so their practitioners decided to show how effective it was against more fancy styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You also have to change your striking style of combat grapplers.it is different than the one used against strikers.


True. The converse is, of course, also true. I wouldn't want to go against a striker using the same grappling I'd use in a no-strikes contest (like the Judo I originally learned).


----------



## Buka

For you strikers here (yes, we all have some grapple experience, but you know what I mean)...given the choice, who would you rather fight, another striker or a grappler?


----------



## Jaeimseu

Buka said:


> For you strikers here (yes, we all have some grapple experience, but you know what I mean)...given the choice, who would you rather fight, another striker or a grappler?


If I'm trying to win, I'd rather fight a striker. If I'm just trying not to get hurt, give me the grappler. This assumes that I'm equal to the striker in ability. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Grapplers will mess you up.


----------



## Jaeimseu

drop bear said:


> Grapplers will mess you up.


Yikes! Don't reach for the ground like that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Jaeimseu said:


> Yikes! Don't reach for the ground like that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Breakfalls re cool.

I have known grapplers with some bad attitudes and they will just break stuff on you.

It is downright scary.


----------



## Jaeimseu

drop bear said:


> Breakfalls re cool.
> 
> I have known grapplers with some bad attitudes and they will just break stuff on you.
> 
> It is downright scary.


True that. Lots of trust required in grappling training partners. Tapping out quickly doesn't hurt, either. At my age I don't have any need to train with bad attitudes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JP3

Bottom line of this discussion is, the guy who is able to put his game on the other guy first, ends up on top. Literally.

You last two guys posting about how grapplers can mess you up, thank you, I resemble that remark -- but without the intentional and bad attitude to try to break the training p[artner. That's no fun, you only get to practice the technique 2 times. Once on left side, once on the right.  J/K !!

Y'all know this discussion has been going on for a long, long time, right?  My first exposure to it was some MA rag mag back when I was... I think  7 years old.  Something like Black Belt, but I can't remember if that was it or not, BB may not have even been in publishing then... that was 1975.  I remember back then reading through a picture article of "Karate vs. Judo... Which is More Effective?" Yes, one of those...  Anyway, they got no farther than anyone has in the years since trying to nail this one down.  It's not chicken and egg theory, but the logical circle is similar.  If I do then he can do and then I can do but that means he can do which lets me do etc. etc. etc.  I would bet you that back in Ancient (Insert old country of choice here) folks had these same discussions and the same sort of ego-based conversations ot started and blood was spilled, even if it was only a bloody nose from someone popping somebody else -- without actually resolving the issue.

I'm going into my 20th year after switching primarily to grappling stuff..., and I did striking stuff for 25 years as well (overlap of about 10 years in there), I'm not 80). The reason for this is simple... joints start bothering ya at age 35, no clue why, but there it is. Practicing grappling stuff (practicing correctly, mind ya) is easier on the body than hard-core training of the striking stuff. And, we all know it at least as effective if you need it to defend yourself or a loved one(s).  I absolutely love my aikijutsu, it's quite elgant... and very, very nasty in that elegant way.

The above mess being said, grappling arts have one huge whole, and it's a hard one to get around unless you don't "engage" at all (e.g. aikido movement, stuff like that).  Against more than one opponent, it can put you in a very bad situation if you get tangled up witht he first guy and let the other guy get behind, beside, on top of you while you are tied up. Granted, you are pulling off wings and hitting the first guy with the planet and very rapidly lowering the odds (hopefully) but the other guy still has the opening for a free shot, and in my opinion, that's bad.  Much better to be range-defensive (movement based stuff, and I put arts like TKD and aikido in here together in this, as odd as that sounds, having done both, the movements skills (NOT the stances, Ack!) are quite parallel when facing a baddie.

Personally, if faced with a single bad guy (but we always train ther's never a single bad guy, right... at least, you should be if you are a self-defense school/training) then I'd not be averse to going tot he ground and giggling while I wait for the cops to show up, not even trying to "win" just keeping the situation under control. Grapplers can do that, strikers can't.

But.... more than one? They get the catalog, probably starting out witht he Thai-boxing to the first one to get within range and the Hapkido after that, along witht he street-do learned by bouncing for a bit (it is just NOT the same outside the club as inside the dojo, you guys). 

Man, it's early in the morning and I must be feeling loquacious to have posted this novella already. Apologies!


----------



## Buka

But it was a good novella, you loquacious old man, you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jaeimseu said:


> Yikes! Don't reach for the ground like that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes. Also, don't celebrate like that after injuring someone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jaeimseu said:


> True that. Lots of trust required in grappling training partners. Tapping out quickly doesn't hurt, either. At my age I don't have any need to train with bad attitudes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think this is one of the reasons I teach. Now I have more control over the safety in the training space. I'm not at all interested in training with someone who is overly competitive, to the point they're willing to hurt someone to win a point/match/bragging rights.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Personally, if faced with a single bad guy (but we always train ther's never a single bad guy, right... at least, you should be if you are a self-defense school/training) then I'd not be averse to going tot he ground and giggling while I wait for the cops to show up, not even trying to "win" just keeping the situation under control. Grapplers can do that, strikers can't.



Yeah. Training against multiple attackers generally looks like this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Training against multiple attackers generally looks like this.


I don't know if you noticed it, but he had a weak stance, and the reason he ended up on the ground was because the guy behind him swept his legs.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know if you noticed it, but he had a weak stance, and the reason he ended up on the ground was because the guy behind him swept his legs.



The reason he ended up on the ground is because there were ten guys  beating on him. Which is what happens most of the time.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The reason he ended up on the ground is because there were ten guys  beating on him. Which is what happens most of the time.


Nope. play the video slow and you'll see the sweep that take him down.  It was probably more of a leg kick, but when I played the video at a slower speed you can see that they others knew that he would fall to the ground as a result of his legs being kicked from under him.

It was a pretty good initiation attack


----------



## Ironbear24

First off that video is stupid for several reasons. One being that is not a real fight. That is what we call "getting jumped in" it is what you have to so get into a gang. It is an initiation ritual.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know if you noticed it, but he had a weak stance, and the reason he ended up on the ground was because the guy behind him swept his legs.


Agree that he has a weak stance. If his feet are not that close together, it's not that easy to sweep him down from that angle. But if his feet are apart, his opponent behind him could kick his groin.


----------



## Ironbear24

When you are getting jumped in you cannot.

1. Cry
2. Fight back.
3. Call for help. 
 It is to show you are tough enough to be in the gang.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree that he has a weak stance. If his feet are not that close together, it's not that easy to sweep him down from that angle. But if his feet are apart, his opponent behind him could kick his groin.


 very true.  Maybe a bow stance would work? It wouldn't need to be low. Just one foot forward and another foot back type thing. I would have allowed him to take a wider stance without exposing too much of his groin.

Do they allow groin kicks in gang initiations when they are getting "jumped in?" lol.



Ironbear24 said:


> When you are getting jumped in you cannot.
> 
> 1. Cry
> 2. Fight back.
> 3. Call for help.
> It is to show you are tough enough to be in the gang.


It wouldn't work for me because I would definitely do #2.  I had guy from a fraternity ask me to join and he asked me what would I do if they hit me.  I told him that I would hit them back. So that ended any chances of me being a part of that group lol.  With fraternities it's called hazing but the concept is still the same. How much physical punishment can you take and if you are willing to take it in order to be part of the frat.   Stuff like that never made sense to me.  If someone actually cared about you they wouldn't do something like that. There are other ways to create strong bonds and to see how tough someone is. 

Unfortunately mess like this goes on.


----------



## Ironbear24

No you cannot do groin kicks because that would be fighting back. Typically in jumping someone they avoid hitting you in the nuts or anywhere they can kill you, they just want to beat the **** out of you and not kill you.

And yeah there are better ways to show how tough someone is but keep in mind these are gangs who do it. Not fraternities or anything but street gangs. They don't typically care too much about other members unless they are related or high ranking in the gang.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> they just want to beat the **** out of you and not kill you.


My teacher told me that there was a guy when people jumped on him, he bend down, used both arms to cover his head, let those guys to beat on him. When they finished beating on him, he even asked, "Do you guys have enough? Are you sure?" Next day he brought an axe and killed everybody that attacked him include their family members.

Some guys have reputation as, "If you mess with me, I'll not only kill you, I'll kill all your family members include your dog." IMO, it's stupid and risky to just "beat up" someone.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My teacher told me that there was a guy when people jumped on him, he bend down, used both arms to cover his head, let those guys to beat on him. When they finished beating on him, he even asked, "Do you guys have enough? Are you sure?" Next day he brought an axe and killed everybody that attacked him include their family members.
> 
> Some guys have reputation as, "If you mess with me, I'll not only kill you, I'll kill all your family members include your dog." It's stupid to treat a street fight as "fun".



That was a fight though. This was not a fight, it is an initiation ritual for people who wish to join the gang. It does not happen against he persons will but is something they request to be done to them.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Grapplers will mess you up.


Hi did a break fall - he fell and he broke something.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Buka said:


> For you strikers here (yes, we all have some grapple experience, but you know what I mean)...given the choice, who would you rather fight, another striker or a grappler?


Depends on the striker and the grappler.


----------



## PhotonGuy

JowGaWolf said:


> It wouldn't work for me because I would definitely do #2.  I had guy from a fraternity ask me to join and he asked me what would I do if they hit me.  I told him that I would hit them back. So that ended any chances of me being a part of that group lol.  With fraternities it's called hazing but the concept is still the same. How much physical punishment can you take and if you are willing to take it in order to be part of the frat.   Stuff like that never made sense to me.  If someone actually cared about you they wouldn't do something like that. There are other ways to create strong bonds and to see how tough someone is.
> 
> Unfortunately mess like this goes on.



Yes I heard of a fraternity where with the chapter at this one college the hazing of pledges on hell night was much like the video and you couldn't fight back or anything or you wouldn't get in. When the national headquarters of the fraternity found out the chapter got in trouble and had to drop one of their letters.


----------



## JP3

Buka, thanks. Sort of.

Joe, I actually thihnk was not his weak stance, but his poorly placed stance, i.e. in a way that lets someone get behind him.  I know, I get it, easy for me to say, hard for somebody to do, right. Still, trying to steer clear of situations probably best way.

Miagi-san say, "Best way block punch, you no be there." Fits here.

I've never been involved in anything of 3 vs 1 where the 1 was a winner. Got away, sure. Won? Nope. 2 on 1, slightly different. Of course, those were bar fights and my crew and I were on the way to stop (stomp) it, but still. It doesn't take very long to get messed up in a multiples situation.

And, IronBear... even if it was a gang initiation, it's still a multiples situation... it'd be better to DO better, right?


----------



## Ironbear24

JP3 said:


> Buka, thanks. Sort of.
> 
> Joe, I actually thihnk was not his weak stance, but his poorly placed stance, i.e. in a way that lets someone get behind him.  I know, I get it, easy for me to say, hard for somebody to do, right. Still, trying to steer clear of situations probably best way.
> 
> Miagi-san say, "Best way block punch, you no be there." Fits here.
> 
> I've never been involved in anything of 3 vs 1 where the 1 was a winner. Got away, sure. Won? Nope. 2 on 1, slightly different. Of course, those were bar fights and my crew and I were on the way to stop (stomp) it, but still. It doesn't take very long to get messed up in a multiples situation.
> 
> And, IronBear... even if it was a gang initiation, it's still a multiples situation... it'd be better to DO better, right?



In who's opinion would it be better and how do you do better? You are literally supposed to get your *** kicked, if you fight back you don't pass the initiation. 

It's not a test to see if you can fight but a test to see how tough you are. So along as you don't cry or beg for them to stop you are doing the best.


----------



## Ironbear24




----------



## JowGaWolf

Ironbear24 said:


>


nice lol


----------



## Ironbear24

JowGaWolf said:


> nice lol



Only in hardest of hoods of course.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> Miagi-san say, "Best way block punch, you no be there." Fits here.


If you block your opponent's 1st punch, you have to block his 2nd punch, 3rd punch, and ...

The 

- best way to block a punch is not to give your opponent a chance to punch.
- next best way to block a punch is not to give your opponent a space and distance to punch. If your arms are already in your opponent's punching path, his fist has to deal with your arms first before reaching to your face.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you block your opponent's 1st punch, you have to block his 2nd punch, 3rd punch, and ...
> 
> The
> 
> - best way to block a punch is not to give your opponent a chance to punch.
> - next best way to block a punch is not to give your opponent a space and distance to punch. If your arms are already in your opponent's punching path, his fist has to deal with your arms first before reaching to your face.


Glad you posted an explanation.  I was just about counter your statement by saying that a person can block the first punch and move to a position that makes it difficult or impossible to use the second punch.  One of my favorite tactics is to push the first punch into the path of the second punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Glad you posted an explanation.  I was just about counter your statement by saying that a person can block the first punch and move to a position that makes it difficult or impossible to use the second punch.  One of my favorite tactics is to push the first punch into the path of the second punch.


To use your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm is a very good idea. This way, you only have to deal with one of and his arms and not both. 

If you can use your opponent's leading leg to jam his back leg, use his leading arm to jam his back arm, you will have a safe entry.


----------



## Ironbear24

If I block the first punch I don't have to block the 2nd 3rd or whatever, I often grab their wrists which leads to me getting the other hand, then it's time for low kicks.


----------



## Phobius

Ironbear24 said:


> If I block the first punch I don't have to block the 2nd 3rd or whatever, I often grab their wrists which leads to me getting the other hand, then it's time for low kicks.



Had to write. You actually grab a wrist from a first jab? Impressive speed there.


----------



## Ironbear24

Phobius said:


> Had to write. You actually grab a wrist from a first jab? Impressive speed there.



Thank you. I am sure you can do it too, it is not that hard. In all honesty its just prediction, you know they are going to jab, everyone jabs at the face. Just react at the right moment and you got it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Ironbear24 said:


> Thank you. I am sure you can do it too, it is not that hard. In all honesty its just prediction, you know they are going to jab, everyone jabs at the face. Just react at the right moment and you got it.


Have you tried this full contact/speed against a boxer? This gets a lot tougher when they are faster than you and knows how to use faints. Not saying it's impossible, but tougher than you're making it seem in your post.


----------



## Ironbear24

I have done it to other karateka. If you fail to do it, it is also still safe as you still blocked it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> Thank you. I am sure you can do it too, it is not that hard. In all honesty its just prediction, you know they are going to jab, everyone jabs at the face. Just react at the right moment and you got it.


I prefer to use different methods to disable a "lighting speed" jab or cross.

We train how to grab a jab and cross too. But the main purpose for our training is to enhance the ability for the "octopus strategy" that you have better chance to grab on your opponent's wrist when his arms are

- not moving, or
- moving in slow speed.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I use my block to slow down punches. This makes it easier to catch punches no matter how fast the come in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I use my block to slow down punches. This makes it easier to catch punches no matter how fast the come in.


If you can use one arm to block on the elbow of your opponent's punching arm, you can use the other hand to grab on his wrist. This is the beauty of 2 against 1.


----------



## EvanWinther

Watch UFC 1. It was when UFC was just created and it wasn't MMA fighters. They tried to get the best fighters of many different martial arts and the BJJ guy destroyed everyone.


----------



## Ironbear24

EvanWinther said:


> Watch UFC 1. It was when UFC was just created and it wasn't MMA fighters. They tried to get the best fighters of many different martial arts and the BJJ guy destroyed everyone.



Royce Gracie destroyed everyone. not bjj, people at the time didn't train to fight against grappling so they didn't know what to do to fight it. Afterward people learned that they needed to protect themselves against it and now looked what happened, nobody goes far with just bjj alone. Even Royce himself is bad now, he beat matt hughes by cheating and he was even caught using steroids.


----------



## RTKDCMB

EvanWinther said:


> Watch UFC 1. It was when UFC was just created and it wasn't MMA fighters. They tried to get the best fighters of many different martial arts and the BJJ guy destroyed everyone.


Everyone whom he personally fought anyways.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Ironbear24 said:


> Even Royce himself is bad now, he beat matt hughes by cheating


Royce lost to Matt Hughes. No cheating involved.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tony Dismukes said:


> Royce lost to Matt Hughes. No cheating involved.



I meant ken shamrock. My mistake.


----------



## Buka

How did Royce cheat against Shamrock?


----------



## Ironbear24

Illegal shot to the groin. Royce used the excuse "well when I was in ufc they were legal." 

Thats ridiculous because when your family holds ownership in the business and is friends with the owner you should know the rules.


----------



## SenseiHitman

Why do the same set of concepts get applied in two ways that appear different?  The samurai preferred grappling technique due to the type of armor the enemy on the battlefield was wearing.  The priest preferred striking due to the type of clothing the bandit was wearing.  The samurai and priest were both well versed in each method. They both preferred to chose the path of least resistance to achieve victory.  A samurai in a bathhouse would fight like a priest, a priest on the battlefield would fight like a samurai. One can use the opponents force against them to gain effective power in strikes or manipulations, and when striking or manipulating force is applied on the weak points of the attacker.  If you do not understand one you really do not understand the other.


----------



## Juany118

Langenschwert said:


> It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.
> 
> Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble.  As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.
> 
> There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.
> 
> In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.



The first part is a common misconception.  The reason armed, and often armored, warriors and Knights used grappling unarmed arts isnt related to any inherent superiority of grappling, a good unarmored/armed striker can deal with a good unarmored grappler.  The reason can be anwered by answering the following questions.

1. Which makes more sense.  Striking at an individual armed with a weapon, who will use that weapon to parry your strike, or grappling with them to minimize or even remove that weapon from the equation.

2. Does it make more sense to punch, kick, elbow and knee a person wearing armor, or to use grappling techniques that allow you to damage the joints which can still move, and be moved, due to the articulation of the armor?

Striking is not necessarily about getting a KO.  Via striking in a real fight you can have a fully conscious opponent that can't do crap.  A kick to a knee that sheers a knee cap and/ or hyper extends the joint, broken clavicles, legit broken ribs (not fractured).  With proper striking techniques, using leverage principles, you can hyper extend elbows and with proper striking you can even have a fully conscious guy who simply can't see for crap, not because their eyes are swollen shut alla Rocky but because there are strikes where you directly hit the eye.  There are so many things that can be done.

Additionally few traditional martial arts are pure striking.  Even Wing Chun, which is seen as a stereotypical striking art, has Chin Na involving wrists and elbows.

As someone else noted the main issue is that a lot of strikers and even some striking arts in particular are simply not good at applying maximum force once a grappler gets inside a certain range, however that is FAR from universal.


----------



## Buka

Ironbear24 said:


> Illegal shot to the groin. Royce used the excuse "well when I was in ufc they were legal."
> 
> Thats ridiculous because when your family holds ownership in the business and is friends with the owner you should know the rules.




You were commenting in response to young Evan's post concerning UFC 1 (he was completely correct, by the way) and you said that Royce defeated everyone and "at the time" people didn't train to fight against grappling...I assumed you were commenting on UFC 1.... until Matt Hughes was mentioned. My error. You're confusing the hell out of me in this thread. Maybe slow down, let an old fella catch up.


----------



## Langenschwert

Juany118 said:


> 1. Which makes more sense.  Striking at an individual armed with a weapon, who will use that weapon to parry your strike, or grappling with them to minimize or even remove that weapon from the equation.
> 
> 2. Does it make more sense to punch, kick, elbow and knee a person wearing armor, or to use grappling techniques that allow you to damage the joints which can still move, and be moved, due to the articulation of the armor?



Grappling was also a the greater part of the unarmed and unarmoured art of chivalric classes. While strikes are shown in the manuals (Codex Wallerstein shows some kicks, punches, and open-hand strikes), they are clearly subordinate to grappling even in a "street clothes" environment. The wrestling of Master Ott was very influential, and none of that is good with armour. You want Hundzfeldt for that.

Of course a good striker can damage a good grappler to the point of uselessness. It's just hard to do, much like knife defence, only not as one-sided. Yes, you can disarm a knife attacker successfully without harm to yourself. However, chances are you're going to go to the hospital, and it's very likely you're die if attacked by a knife user. In a lesser way, if you're trying to disable a grappler via striking, you had better do it VERY well, or you're in for a whole whack of trouble if you fail.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Langenschwert said:


> if you're trying to disable a grappler via striking, you had better do it VERY well, or you're in for a whole whack of trouble if you fail.


What's the possibility that your 

- kicking leg will be caught? 
- punching arm will be wrapped?

If you are good, after your opponent's 1, 2 punches, you should be able to obtain a clinch.


----------



## Langenschwert

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the possibility that your
> 
> - kicking leg will be caught?
> - punching arm will be wrapped?
> 
> If you are good, after your opponent's 1, 2 punches, you should be able to obtain a clinch.



That's what I'm saying. My co-instructor at my club started out as a striker back in the day. He was a damn fine kickboxer. He then did some sparring with BJJ guys and got tied in knots despite his high-level striking. 

He then started training grappling with a vengeance. He's one of the best grapplers I have ever known.


----------



## Juany118

Langenschwert said:


> Grappling was also a the greater part of the unarmed and unarmoured art of chivalric classes. While strikes are shown in the manuals (Codex Wallerstein shows some kicks, punches, and open-hand strikes), they are clearly subordinate to grappling even in a "street clothes" environment. The wrestling of Master Ott was very influential, and none of that is good with armour. You want Hundzfeldt for that.
> 
> Of course a good striker can damage a good grappler to the point of uselessness. It's just hard to do, much like knife defence, only not as one-sided. Yes, you can disarm a knife attacker successfully without harm to yourself. However, chances are you're going to go to the hospital, and it's very likely you're die if attacked by a knife user. In a lesser way, if you're trying to disable a grappler via striking, you had better do it VERY well, or you're in for a whole whack of trouble if you fail.



But don't forget it's not just about armored, it's about armed as well.  Only a fool with punch at a guy wielding a blade but trying to grapple with them for control of that blade?  Dangerous still but far more sensible  and if you were a member of those classes you were entitled to carry more than just a knife, unlike the commoner.


----------



## EvanWinther

I think a lot of grappling sports also teach how to combat a punch kick etc.


----------



## Kickboxer101

EvanWinther said:


> I think a lot of grappling sports also teach how to combat a punch kick etc.


Tell that to ronda rousey


----------



## Steve

Kickboxer101 said:


> Tell that to ronda rousey


agree to an extent. rousey's striking may not be at the level of a holly holms. but it's good enough to beat the crap out of pretty much anyone on this forum.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Steve said:


> agree to an extent. rousey's striking may not be at the level of a holly holms. but it's good enough to beat the crap out of pretty much anyone on this forum.


Maybe against pure grapplers with 0 striking but her striking isn't good at all


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> agree to an extent. rousey's striking may not be at the level of a holly holms. but it's good enough to beat the crap out of pretty much anyone on this forum.



That's not much of an argument because she took other things besides Judo and bjj. Everyone in that fighting circuit covers all aspects now.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> Maybe against pure grapplers with 0 striking but her striking isn't good at all



That was pretty bad. Then again she may have just warming up? Either way I kept expecting the pizza delivery man or plumber to come in and well, finish the film. 

With that music and the other women in a bathing suit that's the hilarious vibe I got from the video.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Ironbear24 said:


> That's not much of an argument because she took other things besides Judo and bjj. Everyone in that fighting circuit covers all aspects now.



Nope I don't think she does. Read her book she trains at a boxing gym with a coach that tells her off for throwing kicks. Her coach is a joke she got the crap kicked out of her in her last fight and in between rounds the coach said she did amazing and to keep doing what she's doing. That coach has also lost his corner man license yet she still trains with him


----------



## Kickboxer101

Ironbear24 said:


> That was pretty bad. Then again she may have just warming up? Either way I kept expecting the pizza delivery man or plumber to come in and well, finish the film.
> 
> With that music and the other women in a bathing suit that's the hilarious vibe I got from the video.


Nope that's pretty much her boxing take a look at this fight. Yes she got the finish but only because the other girl was awful. She relies on her strength and intimidation more than anything


----------



## Flying Crane

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


I can't speak to other people's perceptions on this.  I'm not going to justify my own.  But when I see questions such as this one, upon which this thread is based, I can't help but feel like someone is trying to justify doing what they do, and looking for validation.

You don't need validation.  Do what you like, do what interests you, and the debate over it won't change anyone's mind so it might not be worth engaging in.

Sometimes ya just gotta say "meh."


----------



## Juany118

If you want to see a female UTC fighter who can strike...


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> Nope that's pretty much her boxing take a look at this fight. Yes she got the finish but only because the other girl was awful. She relies on her strength and intimidation more than anything



So if she has a dedicated boxing coach why is she so bad at it? Ideally this would be a good idea. Her grappling is great so she would need striking.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Ironbear24 said:


> So if she has a dedicated boxing coach why is she so bad at it? Ideally this would be a good idea. Her grappling is great so she would need striking.


Because he's an awful boxing coach even rouseys mother says he's awful and she's the only high level mma fighter who trains with him he seems to just be a yes man tells her what she wants to hear so he can get his cut of the fight purse. In rouseys book she said he completely ignored her when she first went in the gym and she asked him to hold mitts for her and he refused and he only started paying her proper attention when she got famous


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> So if she has a dedicated boxing coach why is she so bad at it? Ideally this would be a good idea. Her grappling is great so she would need striking.



It is relative. Bad at it by ufc terms.

Holly holms is trained by greg Jackson. Who is about the best coach.


----------



## Steve

I think there are some delusions of grandeur up in this thread.  .   It's easy to kibitz from the sidelines, but there are degrees of skill.  Compared to other elite level fighters, rousey is t a great striker.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> That's not much of an argument because she took other things besides Judo and bjj. Everyone in that fighting circuit covers all aspects now.


It isn't much of an argument, because it's not an argument.   It's an observation.    An argument is something else.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> If you want to see a female UTC fighter who can strike...


Technically, a strikeforce fighter.  Carano has never fought in the UFC.   She was a heck of a striker, though,


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Technically, a strikeforce fighter.  Carano has never fought in the UFC.   She was a heck of a striker, though,



Okay, I'll give ya the first bit .  What impressed me most about her was that she did something a lot of fighters don't against grapplers.  She was really good, when she saw it coming, of getting her back against the cage.  That forced a 2 leg take down and when they would go to lift they would lift her into the cage.  They she either just pummeled em or reversed the take down.  I love watching fighter who clearly have "a plan" versus those who play it by ear.


----------



## Skullpunch

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Because of ufc fanboys who don't understand anything else. Yes jiu jitsu was very effective against every style in 1993 but look at Gracie vs Hughes same weight and Hughes style was wrestling so it should be easy for Gracie to sub him but he never tried 1 submission. Basically the sport passed him by. All the old ufc and those videos of Gracie were against people who'd never heard of jiu jitsu these days people know the style even if you never trained you know what an arm bar is or a triangle. All the talk about striking being useless is nonsense look at the ufc stipe miocic is a former boxer, Jon jones was originally a wrestler but most of his success is due to his striking now, robbie lawlor a straight up brawler, connor mcgreggor a striker with awful wrestling and jiu jitsu, Dominic cruz former wrestler but mainly strikes these days. All ufc champions where striking is their base
> 
> Also plenty of former champs as strikers bas rutten, chuck liddel, rampage Jackson, forest griffin, shogun, lyoto machida, Anderson silva, anthony pettis all people who have had great success with striking backgrounds



This is about as biased of a post as one can possibly make here, the number of “inconvenient-to-your-narrative” factors that you’ve conveniently omitted is staggering.

First of all Gracie vs. Hughes.  Hughes has stated multiple times that during his title run he trained no gi jiujitsu with Jeremy Horn - who was mostly a no gi jiujitsu guy.  Hell, in the very post fight interview of the fight when asked if he was afraid of Gracie’s submissions, Hughes said “not really, I train with Jeremy Horn everyday and he’s one of the best submission guys out there”.  Additionally, Hughes is a lot stronger, faster, and better conditioned than Royce was in his PRIME.  In this fight Royce was 40 years old and hadn’t had a high level fight in about 6 years.

Second, who the hell is saying striking is useless?  The closest I’ve heard to any legit MMA fighter saying that is “striking is useless against a grappler if the striker isn’t a good grappler himself”, which is entirely true.  But that’s a far cry from saying “striking is useless”.  Unless you’re specifically criticizing the .001% of the dumbest mma fans out there, this is a horrible strawman argument.

Every single one of your examples are seriously biased.  You conveniently left out that Stipe Miocic was a Div 1 wrestler, which is a WAY higher wrestling achievement than anything he achieved in boxing.  Jon Jones succeeds in striking because his wrestling is good enough to keep/take the fight wherever he wants.  Without his grappling he would be getting taken down and choked out in the first 30 seconds against every single opponent he faced, this is very basic knowledge about MMA btw.  For an example of this check out Stefan Leko’s success (or lack thereof) in MMA, he is a far superior striker compared to Jones, yet he kept getting taken down and submitted by little japanese pro wrestlers because of his lack of wrestling/jiujitsu.  Lawler is not a straight up brawler, he was a straight up brawler in 2002-2004 when he was getting beat up by every well rounded guy he faced, now that he’s a well rounded guy himself he’s a bamf.  Tank Abbot is a straight up brawler, and the differences between he and Lawler are obvious.  Conor McGregor does not have awful jiujitsu, he’s a brown belt under John Kavanaugh.  No, he isn’t world class but he isn’t “awful” either.  And of course the same logic that applies to Jones also applies to Cruz.  Without their grappling ability they would be nothing, they would fare no better than the TMA guys with no ground game from back in UFC 1-7 ish

On your former champs…two of the guys you say have a “striking” background actually have a wrestling background and refined their striking as they went, 4 of them are bjj black belts (one more on top of that is a brown).  Then you have Bas Rutten, who does have a striking background, this is true.  However, it’s also true that the man himself will tell you (as he has stated multiple times) that all of his early career failures were due to a lack of grappling, and after getting taken down and submitted in 30 seconds against Ken Shamrock he began obsessively training his grappling.  And after his grappling became on par with his striking…he became a world champion.

And this is all without even taking into account all of the rules that the athletic commission had to add in order to make it so that the grapplers weren’t just killing everyone so that the strikers actually had a chance in order to make it more entertaining and draw larger crowds (mandatory gloves, referee standups, referee clinch breaking, mandatory rounds which = free reset every 5 minutes, 3-point ground striking rule which completely fukks the old school vale tudo open guard, etc all greatly benefit the striker).


----------



## Ironbear24

Kickboxer101 said:


> Nope that's pretty much her boxing take a look at this fight. Yes she got the finish but only because the other girl was awful. She relies on her strength and intimidation more than anything



Sounds like her boxing coach is a charlatan.


----------



## Juany118

Skullpunch said:


> This is about as biased of a post as one can possibly make here, the number of “inconvenient-to-your-narrative” factors that you’ve conveniently omitted is staggering.



I think you are both on the same page, I just think verbage is creating a wall.  That said Plenty of grapplers, not the Gracies of course (well maybe Royler had some striker issues), got beat in early MMA.  The Gracies dominance imo only showed the following to be true; "Well trained and knowledgeable grapplers beat naive strikers."  The Gracie's had skill AND patience.  One of the reasons they loved no time limit fights is that strikers would get impatient, even say "screw it" and take the bait if a Gracie was trying to get them to "come down" to them, regardless of their preparation (or lack there of) for the ground game. That said, eventually Strikers started to prepare but a striker doesn't have to train to actually engage full on in a ground game to end their naivete', they can train to avoid/neutralize a ground game so they can keep the fight to their strengths.

It is this transition, where strikers basically "caught on" and started to prep that the Gracies finally stepped away.  The family is almost all about BJJ, and understandably so and when the fighters started to become more well versed in dealing with the ground game, they stepped away.

I think we also have to differentiate between the ring/octagon and the street when it comes to grappling though.

The above "well rounded" bit is why I study not just Wing Chun but FMA (Kali in my case).  Kali while not focusing on a ground game like wrestling or BJJ definitely has it in the system, and both have Chin Na (locking techniques) but the main reason I am glad for a ground game in Kali is to use that knowledge to avoid, or get out of, the ground game if possible because.  Ground fighting certainly works in the ring, I find it risky as hell on the street in real life.

If I am fighting a guy his friends may well move to intervene, if I am ground fighting I am vulnerable to them, if I disengage I am, at least temporarily, vulnerable to all of them.  Also there is a difference between doing many of the take downs some grappling arts have on the surface inside of the ring vs on concrete, a tile floor etc.

I also have some occupational specific issues.  If I go to a ground game I may not be able to get to certain tools, hand cuffs most importantly because if I am fighting someone, somebody is going to freaking jail .  It can also leave me vulnerable to someone trying to get my taser, gun, OC, or baton etc.

If people tell me "I am learning BJJ for self defense" I say



> cool, but make sure you are training to try and deal with the guy in a 'stand up' way as well because if you are in a bar and he is with his buddies, it's not going to be like the movies where the buddies stand back so ya'll can have a 'fair' fight.  If they see their friend is getting his *** handed to him, they will be incoming and if you are already on the ground you are S.O.L


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I also have some occupational specific issues. If I go to a ground game I may not be able to get to certain tools, hand cuffs most importantly because if I am fighting someone is going to freaking jail . It can also leave me vulnerable to someone trying to get my taser, gun, OC, or baton etc.



It is very rare that you will see a guy fight handcuffs on to another guy standing. It is most of the time too akward.


----------



## Skullpunch

Juany118 said:


> What does all of this say?  Plenty of grapplers, not the Gracies of course, got beat in early MMA.



They got beat by OTHER GRAPPLERS, that does absolutely nothing to vindicate any of the claims in the post I quoted above.



Juany118 said:


> That said, eventually Strikers started to prepare but a striker doesn't have to train to actually engage full on in a ground game to end their naivete', they can train to avoid/neutralize a ground game so they can keep the fight to their strengths.
> 
> It is this transition, where strikers basically "caught on" and started to prep that the Gracies finally stepped away.  The family is almost all about BJJ, and understandably so and when the fighters started to become more well versed in dealing with the ground game, they stepped away.



But the only way they could even do this was by extensively training wrestling and jiujitsu, everything else they tried didn't work.  So what this leaves us with is "boxing + muay thai + wrestling + jiujitsu > jiujitsu", but the question in the OP is just "grappling vs. striking".  The scenario you're describing is "well rounded fighter vs. grappler".



Juany118 said:


> I think we also have to differentiate between the ring/octagon and the street.



In the context of the post I was quoting?  Not really…but I'll point one thing out below.



			
				Juany said:
			
		

> Ground fighting certainly works in the ring, I find it risky as hell on the street in real life.



There certainly is risk in going to the ground in a street fight, that actually INCREASES the need for grappling.  The best way to prevent a fight from going to the ground is to be a better wrestler than your attacker.  The second best way (other than being able to outrun your attacker or have a gun on you) is so far behind this that it's not even worth mentioning.  The best way to get off the ground if you end up there incidentally or for whatever reason is to be a better ground grappler than your opponent.  Again, the second best way beyond this is so far behind that it's not even worth mentioning.


----------



## Juany118

Skullpunch said:


> They got beat by OTHER GRAPPLERS, that does absolutely nothing to vindicate the absurd claims in the post I quoted above.



Not really because, as an example, even other members of the Gracie family confessed that Royler had issues with kick boxers.  Doesn't mean he lost to them consistently but fighting is a lot more than style vs style.



> But the only way they could even do this was by extensively training wrestling and jiujitsu, everything else they tried didn't work.  So what this leaves us with is "boxing + muay thai + wrestling + jiujitsu > jiujitsu", but the question in the OP is just "grappling vs. striking".  The scenario you're describing is "well rounded fighter vs. grappler".



But I am confused because when we take the above and add it to...


> There certainly is risk in going to the ground in a street fight, that actually INCREASES the need for grappling.  The best way to prevent a fight from going to the ground *is to be a better wrestler than your attacker.* The second best way (other than being able to outrun your attacker or have a gun on you) is so far behind this that it's not even worth mentioning.  The best way to get off the ground if you end up there incidentally or for whatever reason is to be a better ground grappler than your opponent.  Again, the second best way beyond this is so far behind that it's not even worth mentioning.



First remember I specifically stated one of the arts I study does have a ground game.  That said...

I see an issue.  The Gracie's if not THE best grapplers of their time were among them.  They trained almost exclusively in BJJ (though Royce did cross train in Muay Thai for the Hughes fight as an example that it was not completely exclusive near the end).  However when they started facing fighters who didn't train exclusively in grappling but also trained in striking they started to lose.  

Now there are only so many training hours in the day.  Who is likely to be the better grappler, the guy who spends the vast majority, if not all, of his training in grappling or the guy who split trains in grappling and striking?  Yet the people who split trained started beating the Gracie's.  How did Royler and Royce lose to Sakuraba?  Sakuraba managed to avoid the ground game with his wrestling skills and turned the fights into striking fights.  He, literally, kicked the junk out of them and then, in Roylers case, yes, went to a submission hold but only after MAJOR softening up with kicks, and the Referee called it.   With Royce after rounds 5 and 6 were Royce getting kicked constantly the Gracie's literally "threw in the towel."

To deal with a skilled grappler you indeed need a knowledge of grappling, however a more skilled near exclusive grappler (al la the Gracies) can lose to a more "balanced" fighter if that fighter knows how to use both striking and grappling in combination.  If this wasn't the case then in modern MMA we would still have pure grapplers and the Gracies wouldn't have left when MMA stopped being about Art X vs Art Y and they started training in both X and Y.  The rules changes you noted really didnt come into play until after they had been gone for a bit.  

Now you may disagree with my idea of the skill of elite athletes being based in large part on time spent training in what.  If so the above will not make sense.  That's cool but I do believe, within limits of course, a clearly better grappler can be beaten by a competent/simply good grappler if they know how to integrate their striking art into the scenario.


----------



## Skullpunch

Juany118 said:


> Not really because, as an example, even other members of the Gracie family confessed that Royler had issues with kick boxers.  Doesn't mean he lost to them consistently but fighting is a lot more than style vs style.



Names?  Because the only guys I recall Royler losing to when he was anywhere near his prime were Sakuraba, Sudo, and mayyyyybe Kid Yamamoto but that last one's pushing it on the whole "in his prime" aspect of it.  Who were the kickboxers he had so many problems with?





			
				Juany118 said:
			
		

> I see an issue.  The Gracie's if not THE best grapplers of their time were among them.  They trained almost exclusively in BJJ (though Royce did cross train in Muay Thai for the Hughes fight as an example that it was not completely exclusive near the end).  However when they started facing fighters who didn't train exclusively in grappling but also trained in striking they started to lose.
> 
> Now there are only so many training hours in the day.  Who is likely to be the better grappler, the guy who spends the vast majority, if not all, of his training in grappling or the guy who split trains in grappling and striking?  Yet the people who split trained started beating the Gracie's.  How did Royler and Royce lose to Sakuraba?  Sakuraba managed to avoid the ground game *with his wrestling skills* and turned the fights into striking fights.



Come on man put 2 and 2 together here.  Look at the part in bold, then look at the part of my previous post you quoted and put in bold yourself.  Sakuraba did exactly this



			
				Skullpunch said:
			
		

> The best way to prevent a fight from going to the ground is to be a better wrestler than your attacker.



If Sakuraba were not a superior wrestler compared to the Gracies we might be going "Kazushi who?" right now.



			
				Juany118 said:
			
		

> To deal with a skilled grappler you indeed need a knowledge of grappling, however a more skilled near exclusive grappler (al la the Gracies) can lose to a more "balanced" fighter if that fighter knows how to use both striking and grappling in combination.



Of course.  But the subject of the thread is "grapplers vs strikers".  Not "grapplers vs. well rounded fighters"


----------



## sgraves

in any case if you have one without the other that makes you an incomplete martial artist but I  think its a case ignorance to be honest you have to have standing martial arts cause if you go to the ground in a street fight its no telling what will happen to you if the guys buddies are feeling a certain type of way cause their friend is getting beat up that means your in trouble but hats besides the points it just takes some show and tell with bjj guys and submission wrestlers


----------



## Hanzou

sgraves said:


> in any case if you have one without the other that makes you an incomplete martial artist but I  think its a case ignorance to be honest you have to have standing martial arts cause if you go to the ground in a street fight its no telling what will happen to you if the guys buddies are feeling a certain type of way cause their friend is getting beat up that means your in trouble but hats besides the points it just takes some show and tell with bjj guys and submission wrestlers



Bjj always starts standing up, so yeah, it covers both standing and ground fighting.

The same cannot be said for most martial arts. They focus on fighting from an optimal position and do little to no training about fighting from an inferior position.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Bjj always starts standing up, so yeah, it covers both standing and ground fighting.
> 
> The same cannot be said for most martial arts. They focus on fighting from an optimal position and do little to no training about fighting from an inferior position.



I cannot speak for all martial arts but mine had us begin from being already in a locked full Nelson. The day before with our leg hooked.

I completely agree with you, if the teachings never delve into being in less dominant positions you will more than likely panic when they happen.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Bjj always starts standing up, so yeah, it covers both standing and ground fighting.
> 
> The same cannot be said for most martial arts. They focus on fighting from an optimal position and do little to no training about fighting from an inferior position.


I have to dis agree sir cause bjj main focus is taking your opponent to the ground it cant cover both if strikes aren't apart of the equation there are some techniques that can be done  standing up but the majority of the art focuses ground work


----------



## Hanzou

sgraves said:


> I have to dis agree sir cause bjj main focus is taking your opponent to the ground it cant cover both if strikes aren't apart of the equation there are some techniques that can be done  standing up but the majority of the art focuses ground work



Really?

Why can't it cover both? If I perform a hip toss on an assailant and his head hits the concrete, the fight is over. If I perform a standing guillotine on an assailant trying to tackle me, and I choke him out, the fight is over. If I perform an Osoto Gari on an assailant, and retain control of his arm and perform a standing arm lock and pop the elbow, the fight is over.

All of that is in Bjj. At least it _should_ be.

In every case the only part of my body that hit the ground were my feet.

Yes, Bjj focuses on ground fighting, but any Bjj school worth its salt will tell you that the vast majority of fights start standing up and will teach you how to fight from that range. Hell, Relson Gracie's school states very plainly that if you don't have a good clinch you don't have good Jiujitsu.


----------



## Steve

sgraves said:


> I have to dis agree sir cause bjj main focus is taking your opponent to the ground it cant cover both if strikes aren't apart of the equation there are some techniques that can be done  standing up but the majority of the art focuses ground work


Most Bjj guys who want to learn to strike will have no problem also training boxing, Muay Thai or some other style.   Bjj is a pretty great martial art, but I think the best thing about Bjj is that there's a practical sensibility.   theres no conflict.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Really?
> 
> Why can't it cover both? If I perform a hip toss on an assailant and his head hits the concrete, the fight is over. If I perform a standing guillotine on an assailant trying to tackle me, and I choke him out, the fight is over. If I perform an Osoto Gari on an assailant, and retain control of his arm and perform a standing arm lock and pop the elbow, the fight is over.
> 
> All of that is in Bjj. At least it _should_ be.
> 
> In every case the only part of my body that hit the ground were my feet.
> 
> Yes, Bjj focuses on ground fighting, but any Bjj school worth its salt will tell you that the vast majority of fights start standing up. Hell, Relson Gracie's school states very plainly that if you don't have a good clinch you don't have good Jiujitsu.


if you want to go inot that realm then that's Japanese jujitsu not Brazilian and bjj isn't the only martial that utilizes that standing arm bar bjj focuses on ground fighting atleast 95 percent of it does


----------



## sgraves

Steve said:


> Most Bjj guys who want to learn to strike will have no problem also training boxing, Muay Thai or some other style.   Bjj is a pretty great martial art, but I think the best thing about Bjj is that there's a practical sensibility.   theres no conflict.


that it is I wont deny that


----------



## Hanzou

sgraves said:


> if you want to go inot that realm then that's Japanese jujitsu not Brazilian and bjj isn't the only martial that utilizes that standing arm bar bjj focuses on ground fighting atleast 95 percent of it does



Um, just because Japanese JJ has standing arm bars and wrist locks doesn't mean that Bjj doesn't contain those as well. Where do you think the roots of Bjj come from?

BTW, how much ground grappling is in traditional Japanese Jujtusu?


----------



## Ironbear24

sgraves said:


> I have to dis agree sir cause bjj main focus is taking your opponent to the ground it cant cover both if strikes aren't apart of the equation there are some techniques that can be done  standing up but the majority of the art focuses ground work



Careful. Criticizing bjj is like spitting on hanzou's mom.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Careful. Criticizing bjj is like spitting on hanzou's mom.



There's a difference between criticizing and spreading falsehoods.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> There's a difference between criticizing and spreading falsehoods.



Look, I love kenpo, really do, but at the same time I can admit that not everyone will have the same experience with it as I did. From the looks of it he learned it much different than you did.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Look, I love kenpo, really do, but at the same time I can admit that not everyone will have the same experience with it as I did. From the looks of it he learned it much different than you did.



There's a difference with pulling from your own experience and saying that all Bjj schools do this or that. A cursory look at Bjj across the spectrum would show you that not every Bjj school ignores standing grappling/fighting. Hell, just look at how Bjj was introduced to America via the UFC. Royce did quite well on his feet did he not? Old school Bjj like that is still taught in a lot of places around the country.

With that said, even sport Bjj schools should be learning standing takedowns and throws since competitive Bjj also starts from a standing position.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> There's a difference with pulling from your own experience and saying that all Bjj schools do this or that. A cursory look at Bjj across the spectrum would show you that not every Bjj school ignores standing grappling/fighting. Hell, just look at how Bjj was introduced to America via the UFC. Royce did quite well on his feet did he not? Old school Bjj like that is still taught in a lot of places around the country.



Chuck Lidel did great to with Kenpo Karate, but there are plenty of terrible Kenpo dojos out there. There are also great ones too, but when someone says kenpo is a garbage TMA I just go.

"Look man, find a good dojo and go their with an open mind." Maybe this guy learned some bad bjj? After all if he is getting only a partial experience that could be the case.


----------



## Juany118

Skullpunch said:


> Names?  Because the only guys I recall Royler losing to when he was anywhere near his prime were Sakuraba, Sudo, and mayyyyybe Kid Yamamoto but that last one's pushing it on the whole "in his prime" aspect of it.  Who were the kickboxers he had so many problems with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on man put 2 and 2 together here.  Look at the part in bold, then look at the part of my previous post you quoted and put in bold yourself.  Sakuraba did exactly this
> 
> 
> 
> If Sakuraba were not a superior wrestler compared to the Gracies we might be going "Kazushi who?" right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  But the subject of the thread is "grapplers vs strikers".  Not "grapplers vs. well rounded fighters"



As for the first, if you note, I said Royler had issues with them more so than "beaten" by them.  It was Royce who said that in an interview, maybe because on the surface the way Royler ended up being the first loss for the Gracies in MMA appeared to be based on kicks softening him up for the final submission?  I don't know but you would have to ask Royce.

As for Sakuraba he won imo for two reasons.  First fight he was good enough of a wrestler to NOT play into Royler's ground game.  If he was a "better" wrestler why dodge it?  Answer going wrestling mode would have played to Royler's strengths, Sakuraba was good enough to avoid and smart enough not to be baited and used striking to soften Royler up to the point where the ground game was practical.  Against Royce the above with one additional factor.  The lack of time limit meant that as the fight started getting to like the 5th round Sakuraba being in better condition had more "wind" left in him than Royce.  So that after what was essentially 2 straight rounds of unanswered kicking to the legs (rounds 5 and 6) Rorion threw in the towel.

As for the last bit I only added the "well rounded" bit because of your claim that you had to be a better grappler to beat another grappler.  That isn't true, you can simply be a "good enough grappler" to avoid that particular "game" and use striking that the grappler doesn't have a thorough response to.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Chuck Lidel did great to with Kenpo Karate, but there are plenty of terrible Kenpo dojos out there. There are also great ones too, but when someone says kenpo is a garbage TMA I just go.
> 
> "Look man, find a good dojo and go their with an open mind." Maybe this guy learned some bad bjj? After all if he is getting only a partial experience that could be the case.



I don't believe that Graves was saying that Bjj is garbage, he was saying that Bjj has no standup.

It's the equivalent of saying that TKD has no punches.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> There's a difference between criticizing and spreading falsehoods.



Speaking of falsehoods:



Hanzou said:


> The same cannot be said for *most *martial arts. They focus on fighting from an optimal position and do little to no training about fighting from an inferior position.



Really? Most martial arts?



Hanzou said:


> he was saying that Bjj has no standup.
> 
> It's the equivalent of saying that TKD has no punches.



For an analogy this is spot on.


----------



## Kickboxer101

sgraves said:


> I have to dis agree sir cause bjj main focus is taking your opponent to the ground it cant cover both if strikes aren't apart of the equation there are some techniques that can be done  standing up but the majority of the art focuses ground work


You should probably know this guys the biggest bjj fanboy on here and won't take a single point of criticism of the art


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> I don't believe that Graves was saying that Bjj is garbage, he was saying that Bjj has no standup.
> 
> It's the equivalent of saying that TKD has no punches.



He didn't say it was garbage, I know that but he still gave a criticism based on his knowledge of it. If in his experience he found it lacked stand up and strikes then well it is what it is. He learned from a different place than you did.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Speaking of falsehoods:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Most martial arts?



Feel free to name some martial arts that emphasize ground fighting on any reasonable level.

Take this video for example between two experts in Wing Chun and Karate;






Once they hit the ground, its like two children on the playground.




> For an analogy this is spot on.



Thank you. TKD faces a similarly silly stereotype.


----------



## Hanzou

Kickboxer101 said:


> You should probably know this guys the biggest bjj fanboy on here and won't take a single point of criticism of the art



Excellent observation from someone who has been here for less than three months. 



Ironbear24 said:


> He didn't say it was garbage, I know that but he still gave a criticism based on his knowledge of it. If in his experience he found it lacked stand up and strikes then well it is what it is. He learned from a different place than you did.



And I was correcting that lack of knowledge. Is there a problem with that?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Feel free to name some martial arts that emphasize ground fighting on any reasonable level.



That wasn't the part of the statement I was referring to. It was the following part:



Hanzou said:


> do little to no training about fighting from an inferior position.



I notice you have added the qualifier 'any reasonable level.' now that I have responded to your earlier statement.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That wasn't the part of the statement I was referring to. It was the following part:
> 
> I notice you have added the qualifier 'any reasonable level.' now that I have responded to your earlier statement.



It still means the same thing. See the above video where neither martial artist could fight from their back. "Little to no training" and "on any reasonable level" are interchangeable in that regard.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It still means the same thing. See the above video where neither martial artist could fight from their back. "Little to no training" and "on any reasonable level" are interchangeable in that regard.


So you have gone from 'little or no training from an inferior position' generally to  'little or no training from an inferior position'  specifically referring to ground fighting?


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> It still means the same thing. See the above video where neither martial artist could fight from their back. "Little to no training" and "on any reasonable level" are interchangeable in that regard.



So YouTube is your source of proof? Second are you surprised some people do not train ground fighting in a stand up art?

Finally a lot of WC has basic training on ground fighting but some sifus have reasons whether it being below their standard to roll on the floor, too old to want to train on ground or simply believe in traditional approach where ground was considered anart behind closed door in private not for secrecy but because it was dishonor to be seen rolling on ground like a dog.

Problem is that basic ground fighting is not near good enough anyway if faced with grappler. Which is why you can train both WC and BJJ. My sifu practically insist that we get quite a bit of training in GJJ for self defense purpose.

BJJ has the same issue in the US. No gun practice on how to shoot from standing or kneeling position. After all that is very possible self defense situation.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> And I was correcting that lack of knowledge. Is there a problem with that?



You come off more as offended than trying to correct lack of knowledge.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Um, just because Japanese JJ has standing arm bars and wrist locks doesn't mean that Bjj doesn't contain those as well. Where do you think the roots of Bjj come from?
> 
> BTW, how much ground grappling is in traditional Japanese Jujtusu?


I know where bjj came from im not questioning that but what im saying is that bjj is a 95 percent ground art I wouldn't consider it to be a art that highlights both situations equally


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> I don't believe that Graves was saying that Bjj is garbage, he was saying that Bjj has no standup.
> 
> It's the equivalent of saying that TKD has no punches.


I would never say bjj was garbage not at all im saying just the opposite as a person that trained in striking martial arts most of my training life I couldn't stand bjj cause it took me longer to pick it up but now I like it and have the upmost respect for it but  ill be a stand up martial artist til the day I die and coming from that stand point you could never tell me that its transcends both it wonders in that realm a very little bit but I wouldn't couldn't bjj something that has both


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> 1. So YouTube is your source of proof? 2. Second are you surprised some people do not train ground fighting in a stand up art?



1. Is the conclusion reached from that YT video factual or not?

2. At this point in the evolution of martial arts, yes.



> Finally a lot of WC has basic training on ground fighting



Do you have some examples that you could show me? Further, can you confirm that they're native to Wing Chun and not an add-on some sifu attached to WC in order to stem the MMA fad? I'd be very interested in seeing them. Hopefully its not like some other TMA ground fighting that has been posted earlier on these forums.



> but some sighs have reasons whether it being below their standard to roll on the floor, too old to want to train on ground or simply believe in traditional approach where ground was considered apart behind closed door in private not for secrecy but because it was dishonor to be seen rolling on ground like a dog.



Hopefully you recognize that all of those reasons are outright nonsense.



> Problem is that basic ground fighting is not near good enough anyway if faced with grappler. Which is why you can train both WC and BJJ. My sifu practically insist that we get quite a bit of training in GJJ for self defense purpose.



Good.



> BJJ has the same issue in the US. No gun practice on how to shoot from standing or kneeling position. After all that is very possible self defense situation.



There's a stark difference between not teaching ground fighting in a hand to hand fighting system, and not teaching how to shoot a gun in a MA school dedicated to hand to hand fighting. There's some pretty good reasons not to teach shooting in a Bjj gym. There's very little reason not to teach ground fighting in a MA school.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> You come off more as offended than trying to correct lack of knowledge.



Well yes, just like a TKD practitioner would be offended if someone said that TKD practitioners only know how to throw kicks.



graves said:


> I know where bjj came from I'm not questioning that but what I'm saying is that bjj is a *95 percent ground art* I wouldn't consider it to be a art that highlights both situations equally



Yeah, wrong again.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, just like a TKD practitioner would be offended if someone said that TKD practitioners only know how to throw kicks.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, wrong again.


so you are saying bjj is a standing art as well


----------



## Hanzou

sgraves said:


> so you are saying bjj is a standing art as well



You have to be standing in order to take someone to the ground. 

How do you think a Jiujiteiro is capable of taking down a standing opponent? Magic?


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, just like a TKD practitioner would be offended if someone said that TKD practitioners only know how to throw kicks.



Then by your logic should I be offended everytime you say karate has no grappling? Literally every form of karate I have been to has taught grappling along with striking. They focus more on striking but that does not mean it has 0 grappling.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> You have to be standing in order to take someone to the ground.[/QUOT
> key word ground the objective is to take a person to the ground whether to be on top or bottom getting on the ground is key you can say the same thing about muay thai tkd or boxing which are considered standing arts


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Then by your logic should I be offended everytime you say karate has no grappling? Literally every form of karate I have been to has taught grappling along with striking. They focus more on striking but that does not mean it has 0 grappling.



You mean stuff like this?






I don't consider that "grappling" so feel free to be offended.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> You have to be standing in order to take someone to the ground.
> 
> How do you think a Jiujiteiro is capable of taking down a standing opponent? Magic?


key word ground the objective is to take a person to the ground whether to be on top or bottom getting on the ground is key you can say the same thing about muay thai tkd or boxing which are considered standing arts


----------



## Hanzou

graves said:


> key word ground the objective is to take a person to the ground whether to be on top or bottom getting on the ground is key....



Judo has the same objective. Is Judo not a standing art?


----------



## Ironbear24

Here is an easy way to solve this. In bjj where are you at most of the time?


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Judo has the same objective. Is Judo not a standing art?





Hanzou said:


> Judo has the same objective. Is Judo not a standing art?


its considered a standing art because its tossing or throwing the form  of combat is throwing or tossing not rolling around on the ground


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> You mean stuff like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider that "grappling", so feel free to be offended.



That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.

Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things. 

Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?

You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.


----------



## sgraves

Hanzou said:


> Judo has the same objective. Is Judo not a standing art?


do you consider shaolin kung fu a grappling art


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.



That isn't my only definition of grappling. Just FYI.

Nor is that the point of this conversation. If you wish to pick up this conversation, feel free to restart the numerous threads about that very topic.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> That isn't my only definition of grappling. Just FYI.
> 
> Nor is that the point of this conversation. If you wish to pick up this conversation, feel free to restart the numerous threads about that very topic.



There is no thread. If you define grappling as something different from the definition then I won't argue with you about it. That doesn't change what grappling is however.


----------



## Hanzou

graves said:


> its considered a standing art because its tossing or throwing the form  of combat is throwing or tossing not rolling around on the ground



Uh, what?

Ground (Grappling) Techniques

They're in place in case the throw doesn't end the fight.....








Just like in Bjj.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Uh, what?
> 
> Ground (Grappling) Techniques
> 
> They're in place in case the throw doesn't end the fight.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like in Bjj.



So one technique makes it a ground art? There many techniques where you throw them to the floor then strike them or stomp them.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> So one technique makes it a ground art? There many techniques where you throw them to the floor then strike them or stomp them.



Looks like someone didn't hit the link above the picture.......


----------



## sgraves

idk how else to say it tbh


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Looks like someone didn't hit the link above the picture.......



Yes they exist in Judo. I know this because I have done judo alongside karate, that doesn't make it a ground fighting art because the philosophy of Judo is not "take your opponent to the ground." That is however Brazilian Jiu Jutsu's philosophy.

We hear it all the time, "take your opponent to the ground to eliminate their striking and better control them."


----------



## Buka

Ironbear24 said:


> That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.
> 
> Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things.
> 
> Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?
> 
> You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.



We all have opinions. In mine, that is not grappling, at least as I know it. I also have a lot of experience in stand up wrist locks, arm control etc. And in boxing, as one who likes to fight in the kitchen, I'm experienced in clinching, but that is not what I think of when I hear, or use the word, "grappling".
Again - just my opinion.

This thread is turning into a strange disagreement. Interesting, though.

These statements -

Hanzou is a BJJ "fanboy.
BJJ is 95% groundwork
TKD as no punches

- all paint false pictures.

Hanzou is not a fan boy. He is a dedicated BJJ practitioner, one with a former background in Shotokan Karate. 
While considered politically incorrect by many in his opining on the forum, he has an experienced point of view. I wouldn't go to him if he ran a PR firm, but I would if he ran a dojo.

BJJ is 95% groundwork, while close to true, at least hours wise, it leads one to believe that BJJ has little ability to deal with stand up. That just isn't  close to true. If you do stand up and face a BJJ fighter, you will encounter a nightmare if you are not prepared to fight a BJJ fighter.

TKD no punches, a boxer may think that, and if a TKD practitioner fought a boxer only using his hands he would be at a disadvantage. But he wouldn't be using anywhere near his entire skill set. And there are few things in life more fun than sweeping and kicking boxers. (he says with a wicked grin)

I have been in Karate a long time. The amount of ground work practiced in Karate today, at least as I know Karate, is far different than what was practiced pre 1990's.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Yes they exist in Judo. I know this because I have done judo alongside karate, that doesn't make it a ground fighting art because the philosophy of Judo is not "take your opponent to the ground." That is however Brazilian Jiu Jutsu's philosophy.



Where did I say that Judo is a ground fighting art? I said that Judo and Bjj have the same philosophy in general, which is to take your opponent to the ground. If the throw takes him out, fine. However if your opponent isn't finished then you have ground grappling to finish the job. 

Bjj focuses more on ground fighting, but that doesn't mean that we've completely abandoned the standing game. Judo focuses more on Nage-waza, but that doesn't mean that they've completely abandoned the ground game.



> We hear it all the time, "take your opponent to the ground to eliminate their striking and better control them."



Yes, and that philosophy exists in Judo as well.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that Judo is a ground fighting art? I said that Judo and Bjj have the same philosophy in general, which is to take your opponent to the ground. If the throw takes him out, fine. However if your opponent isn't finished then you have ground grappling to finish the job.
> 
> Bjj focuses more on ground fighting, but that doesn't mean that we've completely abandoned the standing game. Judo focuses more on Nage-waza, but that doesn't mean that they've completely abandoned the ground game.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that philosophy exists in Judo as well.



I know they don't abandon the ground game, I acknowledge that ground techniques exist. (Ne waza) but to compare it to bjj seems silly because the two are very different, I know bjj comes from Judo but the focus is not so much in the floor as bjj.


----------



## sgraves

I never once said that bjj didn't have standing technqiues and ill never take away from that art I just said you cant say that you can place bjj as martial art that has equal standing techniques as it does ground cause it wouldn't be accurate whatsoever that's just my take on it my opinion wasn't supposed to spark this kind of  debate i


----------



## Ironbear24

Buka said:


> Hanzou is not a fan boy. He is a dedicated BJJ practitioner, one with a former background in Shotokan Karate.
> While considered politically incorrect by many in his opining on the forum, he has an experienced point of view. I wouldn't go to him if he ran a PR firm, but I would if he ran a dojo.



Well considering his behavior (not in this thread but past threads.) He comes off like a fanboy and has on multiple occasions trash talked TMA. If he does have a shotokan karate background I don't understand all the TMA bashing.

And when you defend something so adamently to the point you refuse to acknowledge it has weaknesses than that is acting like a fanboy.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> 1. Is the conclusion reached from that YT video factual or not?



Actually it is opinion. There was nothing factual about it. A clip about two guys fighting that goes to the ground. For all we know the guy might know more than he wanted to show, or missed a lot of practise in terms of ground fighting. Maybe he felt he did not need groundgame and ignored it. Maybe his sifu did not teach it because he thought time was better spent standing up. Or his sifu simply had no groundgame to teach.

A judgement based on a video is purely opinion. Bringing back the question, you honestly think YouTube can be considered proof?



Hanzou said:


> 2. At this point in the evolution of martial arts, yes.



Interesting. So how much time do you train to punch or kick in BJJ? I mean, after all at this point in the evolution that is a requirement is it not?





Hanzou said:


> Do you have some examples that you could show me? Further, can you confirm that they're native to Wing Chun and not an add-on some sifu attached to WC in order to stem the MMA fad? I'd be very interested in seeing them. Hopefully its not like some other TMA ground fighting that has been posted earlier on these forums.



There is no traditional Wing Chun, just like there no longer is a traditional BJJ. It is constantly evolving. People may argue with me but things do evolve.

And what are you expecting from a groundfighting system in TMA? You want them to be BJJ? Newsflash since you have no logic at all in your statements, 99% of the stuff you do in BJJ is not applicable to self defense unless you are attacked by a grappler. (That 1% is enought to protect against almost all attacks)

Many TMA's have some limited groundwork to allow them to survive well against a non-skilled attacker. That is the goal and what they do is simply something that fits with their training and is easily taught and practised. Problem with all no matter what it is, it is easily destroyed by a grappler. Here comes the newsflash, nothing can beat a grappler unless you spend equal amount of time training grappling. You do not become a better fighter at someones game unless you train more than they do.

Oh and to continue the thought process you refused to accept. Many practitioners of for instance WC are training a secondary art for learning grappling and ground fighting. Reason why? Because the more people that watch UFC the more general knowledge some techniques become and someday soon we might start seeing them on the streets because people grow up with thinking it is the way one should fight.

According to you, an art does not exist or can be called good unless it can cover ground game as well, spoken by a grappler who can not handle all standup games. Or you never seen a grappler do a crappy job in defending him/herself against punches or kicks? I am sure there are plenty of proof on that on YouTube as well.




Hanzou said:


> Hopefully you recognize that all of those reasons are outright nonsense.



You are speaking nonsense. Or maybe perhaps you trained WC for many sifus? Learned all about how the world works by travelling the entire world and doing everything? Or perhaps you are just some guy that thinks his own art can only be better if he assumes all other arts are crap? Not saying you are, but telling you some of my worries based on the way you write.




Hanzou said:


> Good.



Well given you learn punching and kicking in your BJJ class I am sure you dont need to think much about mixing.



Hanzou said:


> There's a stark difference between not teaching ground fighting in a hand to hand fighting system, and not teaching how to shoot a gun in a MA school dedicated to hand to hand fighting. There's some pretty good reasons not to teach shooting in a Bjj gym. There's very little reason not to teach ground fighting in a MA school.



You do know most places I seen and/or talked with train groundfighting to a limited amount. Nothing that would beat a grappler but still.

Things like not landing on your head, getting back up to base and kicking your opponent and preventing him from getting close. When all that comes to **** and the opponent sits on you? Well there is only so much you can learn before you have to become a dedicated groundfighting art. There is only so much you can learn in a class before the time is up for the day. Besides, why evolve a whole solution to groundfighting when GJJ and BJJ does it so much better?


----------



## Skullpunch

Juany118 said:


> As for the first, if you note, I said Royler had issues with them more so than "beaten" by them.  It was Royce who said that in an interview, maybe because on the surface the way Royler ended up being the first loss for the Gracies in MMA appeared to be based on kicks softening him up for the final submission?  I don't know but you would have to ask Royce.



Your claim about the kickboxers was in response to me saying that the Gracie's LOST to OTHER GRAPPLERS.  A he said/she said statement about one gracie struggling to but not necessarily losing to kickboxers is irrelevant to my argument.



			
				Juany118 said:
			
		

> As for Sakuraba he won imo for two reasons.  First fight he was good enough of a wrestler to NOT play into Royler's ground game.  If he was a "better" wrestler why dodge it?  Answer going wrestling mode would have played to Royler's strengths, Sakuraba was good enough to avoid and smart enough not to be baited and used striking to soften Royler up to the point where the ground game was practical.  Against Royce the above with one additional factor.  The lack of time limit meant that as the fight started getting to like the 5th round Sakuraba being in better condition had more "wind" left in him than Royce.  So that after what was essentially 2 straight rounds of unanswered kicking to the legs (rounds 5 and 6) Rorion threw in the towel.



You do know that defensive wrestling is wrestling, right?  Using your wrestling to control where the fight goes and keep/take it exactly where you want it isn't "dodging" your wrestling, it's using it exactly what it's intended for.



			
				Juany118 said:
			
		

> your claim that you had to be a better grappler to beat another grappler.



Does not exist because I never made such a claim


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> I know they don't abandon the ground game, I acknowledge that ground techniques exist. (Ne waza) but to compare it to bjj seems silly because the two are very different, I know bjj comes from Judo but the focus is not so much in the floor as bjj.



Because of Kano's personal distaste of newaza, and because of Judo's competition rules. However, its all there, it simply isn't emphasized. The same situation is in Bjj, only reversed, with more focus on newaza than nagewaza. That being said, stereotypically a Judoka throws better than a Jiujiteiro, and a Jiujiteiro is better at ground grappling (and knows a few more dirty tricks) than a Judoka. That doesn't mean that either one of them couldn't throw you to the ground and choke you out with authority.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Because of Kano's personal distaste of newaza, and because of Judo's competition rules. However, its all there, it simply isn't emphasized. The same situation is in Bjj, only reversed, with more focus on newaza than nagewaza. That being said, stereotypically a Judoka throws better than a Jiujiteiro, and a Jiujiteiro is better at ground grappling (and knows a few more dirty tricks) than a Judoka. That doesn't mean that either one of them couldn't throw you to the ground and choke you out with authority.



^^
Yup. Different focuses on different styles of grappling.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.
> 
> Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things.
> 
> Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?
> 
> You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.


How many people have tried to kill you?  If the answer is zero, aren't you also talking out of ignorance here?


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> How many people have tried to kill you?  If the answer is zero, aren't you also talking out of ignorance here?



Why would that be talking out of ignorance if we were trained to deal with that situation?


----------



## Phobius

Ironbear24 said:


> Why would that be talking out of ignorance if we were trained to deal with that situation?



I think he meant you saying how someone would act if they tried to kill you. That if you have not experienced it, how would you know? > This is what he meant I assume.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Actually it is opinion. There was nothing factual about it. A clip about two guys fighting that goes to the ground. For all we know the guy might know more than he wanted to show, or missed a lot of practise in terms of ground fighting. Maybe he felt he did not need groundgame and ignored it. Maybe his sifu did not teach it because he thought time was better spent standing up. Or his sifu simply had no groundgame to teach.
> 
> A judgement based on a video is purely opinion. Bringing back the question, you honestly think YouTube can be considered proof?




Well again, do you have some examples of native WC grappling to counter it?




> Interesting. So how much time do you train to punch or kick in BJJ? I mean, after all at this point in the evolution that is a requirement is it not?



Quite a bit actually. There are kicks and punches in Bjj, however all are designed around grappling. Bjj itself is designed to counter strikers.



> There is no traditional Wing Chun, just like there no longer is a traditional BJJ. It is constantly evolving. People may argue with me but things do evolve.



While the techniques are evolving in Bjj, the more traditional styles of Bjj still exist, and those styles tend to be focused more on self defense and street fighting applications.



> And what are you expecting from a groundfighting system in TMA? You want them to be BJJ? Newsflash since you have no logic at all in your statements, 99% of the stuff you do in BJJ is not applicable to self defense unless you are attacked by a grappler. (That 1% is enought to protect against almost all attacks)



That's quite false. Again, Bjj is designed to neutralize strikers as well as grapplers.



> Many TMA's have some limited groundwork to allow them to survive well against a non-skilled attacker. That is the goal and what they do is simply something that fits with their training and is easily taught and practised. Problem with all no matter what it is, it is easily destroyed by a grappler. Here comes the newsflash, nothing can beat a grappler unless you spend equal amount of time training grappling. You do not become a better fighter at someones game unless you train more than they do.



I'd like to just point out that Bjj's goal is to allow you to survive against both an unskilled and skilled attacker.



> Well given you learn punching and kicking in your BJJ class I am sure you dont need to think much about mixing.



You don't, but some choose to in order to be more well rounded.


----------



## Ironbear24

If bjj has striking in it then why do so many people in it take other arts to be more "well rounded ?"

If it has both as you said then there should be no reason to seek out other styles to become well rounded.


----------



## Ironbear24

Phobius said:


> I think he meant you saying how someone would act if they tried to kill you. That if you have not experienced it, how would you know? > This is what he meant I assume.



Ok well since I won't know until he reiterates what he means I won't reply. No use in trying to figure out and possibly misunderstand.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Why would that be talking out of ignorance if we were trained to deal with that situation?


How do you know if you've never been in that situation?  I mean, ignorance is a lack of experience or knowledge.  Soooo...  if you have no experience with people trying to kill you, you are ____________.  (that's a fill in the blank problem)


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> How do you know if you've never been in that situation?  I mean, ignorance is a lack of experience or knowledge.  Soooo...  if you have no experience with people trying to kill you, you are ____________.  (that's a fill in the blank problem)



Do you not understand the point of training? It is so you will be able to deal with situations, so you will be ready for them.

I have been attacked by a guy with a box cutter before and another time a guy with a  pocket knife. I am still alive so I must have done something right.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Well again, do you have some examples of native WC grappling to counter it?



Then you need to define what is native WC. I do not understand the term. No such thing exist in my view except if you say like "10 years ago" then I can figure out how they did WC 10 years ago. But that is not today.

And grappling to counter what? I was talking about self defense and clearly stated none of it would work against a grappler. Just like no grappler would be able to stand up and kick their way to victory. Or even punching. You may think they would but it is just a silly belief.

We used to do those things and skipped them in order to learn something that is better. Does not mean those things could not get you out of a bad scenario on the ground against an average joe. But they were only designed to get you standing again.



Hanzou said:


> Quite a bit actually. There are kicks and punches in Bjj, however all are designed around grappling. Bjj itself is designed to counter strikers.



Well yea, there are ground techniques in WC. Heck some are so terrible, and quite old now as well thank god, that you would be able to laugh yourself to sleep looking at them. Same for those punches and kicks. It is not the norm that BJJ practitioners actually learn to kick and punch. Just because they do some similar techniques does not mean they know them, just like  WC does not know groundfighting because they do some crazy belief down there.



Hanzou said:


> While the techniques are evolving in Bjj, the more traditional styles of Bjj still exist, and those styles tend to be focused more on self defense and street fighting applications.



You do not know your own history? There are techniques added to BJJ all the time. Even into the self defense and street fighting focused kind. Maybe not "ALL the time" but if something works it gets added.



Hanzou said:


> That's quite false. Again, Bjj is designed to neutralize strikers as well as grapplers.



WC is designed to stand on two feet. BJJ is designed to neutralize strikers. I feel sad for all those arts that are not designed to win anything.

Besides that was not the point, the point was that only a limited amount of all techniques and moves done in BJJ will ever be needed in a self defense scenario. The rest is to survive against grapplers or someone that knows at least somewhat what they are doing on the ground.



Hanzou said:


> I'd like to just point out that Bjj's goal is to allow you to survive against both an unskilled and skilled attacker.



All arts have that as a goal. Does not mean you are always successful. Often the outcome is determined by who is the better fighter, and the better fighter is the one training more and harder usually. And being better prepared.

There are some schools in BJJ that train against real punching, just like there are schools that think they themselves can learn real punching in an hour. Not to mention kicking.



Hanzou said:


> You don't, but some choose to in order to be more well rounded.



Yea, this was not at all wishful thinking? You mean to say the whole MMA business people would just as well be pure BJJ but knowing other arts is just for fun, it holds no value to fighting learning to fight standing?


----------



## JP3

Ironbear24 said:


> I have done it to other karateka. If you fail to do it, it is also still safe as you still blocked it.


So.. the answer is no, you've not tried that with a boxer. Boxers can be greased-lightning fast, they don't lose their balance easily just because their hands get blocked on the 1st 2nd 3rd... etc., or even if they miss totally, still on balance.

And... I am reminded in one of the other threads, someone asking "Why do people even train to defend against wrist grabs nowadays?"

Well, the answer is, so they can deal with ironBears skillzzz... I'm glad I figured this out, finally.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> If bjj has striking in it then why do so many people in it take other arts to be more "well rounded ?"
> 
> If it has both as you said then there should be no reason to seek out other styles to become well rounded.



There really isn't a reason beyond personal preference. Some prefer to take a striking art to compliment their grappling, while some are perfectly happy only knowing Bjj.


----------



## Ironbear24

JP3 said:


> Well, the answer is, so they can deal with ironBears skillzzz... I'm glad I figured this out, finally.



0_o  huh?

What does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## Ironbear24

JP3 said:


> So.. the answer is no, you've not tried that with a boxer. Boxers can be greased-lightning fast, they don't lose their balance easily just because their hands get blocked on the 1st 2nd 3rd... etc., or even if they miss totally, still on balance.



What difference does it make what the style the person you do it to has? 

Karatekas can punch very fast and so can a boxer. The stuff you mentioned are not exclusive to just boxers.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> There really isn't a reason beyond personal preference. Some prefer to take a striking art to compliment their grappling, while some are perfectly happy only knowing Bjj.



There is a difference between personal preference and to become well rounded. 

I took some tai chi for personal preference, not to be well rounded.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Do you not understand the point of training? It is so you will be able to deal with situations, so you will be ready for them.
> 
> I have been attacked by a guy with a box cutter before and another time a guy with a  pocket knife. I am still alive so I must have done something right.


I think I understand the point of training. do you understand the difference between training for something and actually doing that thing?

I was attacked by a guy with a knife once, too.   I had no training at the time. I think I'm still alive so.... What does that mean?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> "Why do people even train to defend against wrist grabs nowadays?"


This is why and I call it "octopus" strategy. The moment that you can control both of your opponent's wrists, the moment that the striking game is over and the grappling game will start.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> I think I understand the point of training. do you understand the difference between training for something and actually doing that thing?
> 
> I was attacked by a guy with a knife once, too.   I had no training at the time. I think I'm still alive so.... What does that mean?



It means we have both done something right.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> It means we have both done something right.


really?   do you think it's possible for someone to do everything wrong and still survive an attack? i do.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Then you need to define what is native WC. I do not understand the term. No such thing exist in my view except if you say like "10 years ago" then I can figure out how they did WC 10 years ago. But that is not today.



In other words, grappling that comes from WC itself, not grappling that arrived to the art via cross-training.



> And grappling to counter what?  I was talking about self defense and clearly stated none of it would work against a grappler. Just like no grappler would be able to stand up and kick their way to victory. Or even punching. You may think they would but it is just a silly belief.



So you're saying that no one has gotten a lucky punch and knocked someone out?



> Well yea, there are ground techniques in WC. Heck some are so terrible, and quite old now as well thank god, that you would be able to laugh yourself to sleep looking at them.




So where can I see this WC grappling?



> Same for those punches and kicks. It is not the norm that BJJ practitioners actually learn to kick and punch. Just because they do some similar techniques does not mean they know them, just like  WC does not know groundfighting because they do some crazy belief down there.



Actually it was the norm in old school Bjj. For example, the Paizo(sp?) is a kick used to determine range, distract, or attack the legs. The ground and pound currently common in MMA comes directly from Bjj where it was used to either knock someone out from the mount, or force a roll over into a submission. Head butting, elbows, heel kicks, and upward kicks from guard are there as well.

If you need to see examples of this, check out the Gracie in action tapes, and Royce in the original UFCs.



> You do not know your own history? There are techniques added to BJJ all the time. Even into the self defense and street fighting focused kind. Maybe not "ALL the time" but if something works it gets added.



Where did I say that techniques weren't added?





> WC is designed to stand on two feet. BJJ is designed to neutralize strikers. I feel sad for all those arts that are not designed to win anything.



What?



> Besides that was not the point, the point was that only a limited amount of all techniques and moves done in BJJ will ever be needed in a self defense scenario. The rest is to survive against grapplers or someone that knows at least somewhat what they are doing on the ground.



Because it's designed to deal with skill and unskilled opponents. A martial art designed to only deal with only unskilled opponents is pretty dubious wouldn't you agree?





> Yea, this was not at all wishful thinking? You mean to say the whole MMA business people would just as well be pure BJJ but knowing other arts is just for fun, it holds no value to fighting learning to fight standing?



No one enters MMA without knowing some variation of Bjj.

Where you get your striking is totally up to you.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> really?   do you think it's possible for someone to do everything wrong and still survive an attack? i do.



Can you please get to your point? If you "did wrong" as you put it then your attacker must have done things wrong his or herself.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> No one enters MMA without knowing some variation of Bjj.



Wrestling, Judo, are both great and are not bjj.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> Can you please get to your point? If you "did wrong" as you put it then your attacker must have done things wrong his or herself.





Hanzou said:


> In other words, grappling that comes from WC itself, not grappling that arrived to the art via cross-training.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that no one has gotten a lucky punch and knocked someone out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where can I see this WC grappling?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the norm in old school Bjj. For example, the Paizo(sp?) is a kick used to determine range, distract, or attack the legs. The ground and pound currently common in MMA comes directly from Bjj where it was used to either knock someone out from the mount, or force a roll over into a submission. Head butting, elbows, heel kicks, and upward kicks from guard are there as well.
> 
> If you need to see examples of this, check out the Gracie in action tapes, and Royce in the original UFCs.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that techniques weren't added?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's designed to deal with skill and unskilled opponents. A martial art designed to only deal with only unskilled opponents is pretty dubious wouldn't you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one enters MMA without knowing some variation of Bjj.
> 
> Where you get your striking is totally up to you.


and really, the moment we find some aspect of anfi-grappling hat makes sense, Bjj would happily steal it and incorporate if into the style. we are practical like that.


----------



## Ironbear24

Watch out folks the mafia is here.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Wrestling, Judo, are both great and are not bjj.



Actually aspects of Judo and wrestling are both contained within Bjj.

Bjj itself is a combination of catch wrestling, Judo, and street fighting.

Anyway, feel free to locate a Current MMA fighter with zero Bjj training.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Anyway, feel free to locate a MMA fighter with zero Bjj training.



Already done it in the past when you asked me this before.



Hanzou said:


> Actually aspects of Judo and wrestling are both contained within Bjj.
> 
> Bjj itself is a combination of catch wrestling, Judo, and street fighting.



That doesn't mean when you are doing Judo or wrestling you are doing bjj. It's more like the opposite. 

Also why is MMA always coming up? MMA is not the end all be all to martial arts.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Hanzou said:


> Anyway, feel free to locate a Current MMA fighter with zero Bjj training.



Connor mcgreggor well it looked like it in his last fight lol


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Actually aspects of Judo and wrestling are both contained within Bjj.
> 
> Bjj itself is a combination of catch wrestling, Judo, and street fighting.
> 
> Anyway, feel free to locate a Current MMA fighter with zero Bjj training.



Would that also apply if we looked at wins by submissions?

The reasoning to train bjj for mma is to defend it.  The reason to train wrestling is because it is easier to sit on a guy and bash them than to submit them.

My coach trains bjj.  But is not a bjj guy.  I think he may be a blue belt and that is just to save embarrassing black belts in other clubs.

So the idea that bjj is a foundation of mma success is not really true.


Same as to say mma guys do boxing but are not boxers in the sense that they have taken that anywhere.

There is a move by elite level athletes to cross train.  This includes bjj guys.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Already done it in the past when you asked me this before.



Uh where?




> Also why is MMA always coming up? MMA is not the end all be all to martial arts.



MMA was what me and Phobius was talking about. I don't know why you decided to jump into the conversation.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> So the idea that bjj is a foundation of mma success is not really true.



If it's acknowledged that you're not going to get far in MMA without jiujitsu, wouldn't that indicate that is a foundation of success in MMA?


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Uh where?



Sorry but if you expect me to dig through months of my old posts I am not going to do that. If you really are interested you can do that. They are here somewhere.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> If it's acknowledged that you're not going to get far in MMA without jiujitsu, wouldn't that indicate that is a foundation of success in MMA?



Not really. You don't have to be a black belt or champion bjjer in it. But you do have to be exposed to it.

Exactly like your bjj is made better by doing wrestling or judo. But they are not foundations of bjj.

This is the lockdown series of submission wrestling. And bjj schools represent but do not dominate.
2015 Gym Rankings » Submission Grappling Series


----------



## drop bear

Mabye better to say bjj like sparring or cardio is a vital drill for mma.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Not really. You don't have to be a black belt or champion bjjer in it. But you do have to be exposed to it.



Well that isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that it's unheard of for a pro MMA fighter to enter the sport without Bjj training. That sort of indicates that Bjj is needed for success in the sport.



> Exactly like your bjj is made better by doing wrestling or judo. But they are not foundations of bjj.



Doesn't that go both ways though? Judokas, wrestlers, and Jiujitieros get their skills enhanced by cross training. Heck it's getting to the point now where Bjj schools are simply becoming grappling hubs where all forms of grappling are getting mashed together.

Like Steve mentioned earlier; If there were competent WC grappling we (the Bjj community) would happily steal it and incorporate it into our system.


----------



## Ironbear24

What would you be stealing really? There are no patents on how to move and use your body to your advantage.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well that isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that it's unheard of for a pro MMA fighter to enter the sport without Bjj training. That sort of indicates that Bjj is needed for success in the sport.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that go both ways though? Judokas, wrestlers, and Jiujitieros get their skills enhanced by cross training. Heck it's getting to the point now where Bjj schools are simply becoming grappling hubs where all forms of grappling are getting mashed together.
> 
> Like Steve mentioned earlier; If there were competent WC grappling we'd (the Bjj community) would happily steal it and incorporate it into our system.



Yes and basically yes.

And we have stolen WC concepts for stand up and grappling and due to the training atmosphere made them better.

Better? people say getting all in a huff.

Yes. We gave the concepts to top fighters who threw them at other top fighters who then handed us down a version that works.


----------



## Ironbear24

I'll give you two fighters who are very good with no bjj that are some of my favorites. Mirko filipovic and Cung Le. There you have Tae Kwon Do from Mirko and Sanshou and Tae Kwon Do and Wrestling from Cung Le.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> This is the lockdown series of submission wrestling. And bjj schools represent but do not dominate.
> 2015 Gym Rankings » Submission Grappling Series



This came from the top school on the list;



> With great coaches offering a variety of training sessions – MMA, *Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, *Circuit to name a few – Fightcross brings an exciting and team orientated way of keeping fit and strong that caters to the everyday person’s life and routine. People of professions ranging from office workers, trades, students, parents to name a few are all made to feel welcome, comfortable, encouraged and challenged in order to help them reach their personal goals on their own terms.



With that said, with the present state of grappling, I don't really expect pure Bjj schools to dominate. I fully recognize that a Bjj white belt with a strong wrestling or Judo background has a significant advantage over a Bjj white belt with zero grappling history. 

I also recognize that there are those within the grappling community who would prefer to decrease Bjj's influence in modern grappling for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> I'll give you two fighters who are very good with no bjj that are some of my favorites. Mirko filipovic and Cung Le. There you have Tae Kwon Do from Mirko and Sanshou and Tae Kwon Do and Wrestling from Cung Le.



Le is a Bjj blue belt.

Cung Le - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Give me a minute on Mirko.



Ironbear24 said:


> What would you be stealing really? There are no patents on how to move and use your body to your advantage.



A grappling innovation not present in current grappling systems. Something like Half Guard or the leg lock entries of Masakazu Imanari.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Le is a Bjj blue belt.
> 
> Cung Le - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Give me a minute on Mirko.



Blue belt? Blue belt is barely a step above white.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Blue belt? Blue belt is barely a step above white.



Uh, theres four stripes/ranks in white belt before you reach blue.

In some Bjj schools, a Bjj blue belt is expected to be capable of holding their own against black belts in other styles.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Uh, theres four stripes/ranks in white belt before you reach blue.



Well I just earned more respect in my sifu for having a blue belt in Gracie jiu jitsu.

Shows how much I know about bjj.


----------



## Skullpunch

Hanzou said:


> Give me a minute on Mirko.



Lived with Fabricio Werdum during his run in PRIDE, they trained together everyday with Werdum helping him with his bjj and Mirko helping Werdum with his striking.  Don't know if Werdum ever bothered with giving him belts of any kind tho.


----------



## Ironbear24

Skullpunch said:


> Lived with Fabricio Werdum during his run in PRIDE, they trained together everyday with Werdum helping him with his bjj and Mirko helping Werdum with his striking.  Don't know if Werdum ever bothered with giving him belts of any kind tho.



So he exposed to it but it didn't take it traditionally? Either way seemed to work out for him.

How about mark hunt?


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> So he exposed to it but it didn't take it traditionally? Either way seemed to work out for him.
> 
> How about mark hunt?



Considering that Hunt was able to get Fedor Emelianenko into a kimura during their fight, and that he has trained in multiple MMA gyms, I would say that there's a pretty good chance that Hunt has Bjj training.


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Hunt was able to get Fedor Emelianenko into a kimura during their fight, and that he has trained in multiple MMA gyms, I would say that there's a pretty good chance that Hunt has Bjj training.



His information just says kick boxing so it must not be accurate.


----------



## Steve

This thread makes me laugh for so many different reasons right now.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tito Ortiz, Randy couture,. Chance Williams, kazushi sakuraba, bas rutten. 

From what I can see all their grappling comes from wrestling.


----------



## Steve

Wrestling is a subset of BJJ.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Wrestling is a subset of BJJ.



You can do wrestling and not be doing bjj.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> This thread makes me laugh for so many different reasons right now.


I finally mustered the energy to read through it. It is an absolute, utter wreck, and I find it hilarious.


----------



## Hanzou

Ironbear24 said:


> Tito Ortiz, Randy couture,. Chance Williams, kazushi sakuraba, bas rutten.
> 
> From what I can see all their grappling comes from wrestling.



Ortiz trained with Clebar Luciano, a Royler Gracie BB. Randy Couture has trained in Bjj though he has said that he pulls more of his grappling style from Catch Wrestling. Kazushi Sakuraba trained in Bjj under Christiano Marcello. Bas Rutten talks about his Bjj training pretty consistently in numerous interviews.

Who the hell is Chance Williams?


----------



## Ironbear24

Hanzou said:


> Ortiz trained with Clebar Luciano, a Royler Gracie BB. Randy Couture has trained in Bjj though he has said that he pulls more of his grappling style from Catch Wrestling. Kazushi Sakuraba trained in Bjj under Christiano Marcello. Bas Rutten talks about his Bjj training pretty consistently in numerous interviews.
> 
> Who the hell is Chance Williams?



When I do research on them it just says wrestling, shoot wrestling and catch wrestling. For couture it says Greco Roman wrestling. Where do you get your information from?

As for interviews I will admit I don't watch them much.


----------



## drop bear

Brock lesner just got his blue belt.

Brock Lesnar Earns His Blue Belt In Jiu-Jitsu


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Brock lesner just got his blue belt.
> 
> Brock Lesnar Earns His Blue Belt In Jiu-Jitsu


 Grats for Brock.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> In other words, grappling that comes from WC itself, not grappling that arrived to the art via cross-training.



EDIT: You know what. Feel how you feel. I believe in mixing and then we can agree to disagree.

Do not need to write a big post about how your opinion comes out as silly sometimes.

WC grappling is most likely not suited to beat a grappler on the ground. This is the reason why I train GJJ instead. So what kind of point are you trying to make?

You want to claim that just because the art has a anti-grappling or whatever to call it that is best suited against non-grapplers that it should just lie down and die out? Are you claiming it is inferior in stand-up fighting? Are you claiming a BJJ artist can beat any and all stand-up fights?

I just dont see what kind of point you want to make. MMA is not a proof, but it exists because mixing arts is sometimes a good idea. It is all about the style you have yourself. Not how pure your style is compared to a specific art. Better to mix all those colors together and make something unique for you.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Hunt was able to get Fedor Emelianenko into a kimura during their fight, and that he has trained in multiple MMA gyms, I would say that there's a pretty good chance that Hunt has Bjj training.



Being so into this. You if anyone should know Kimura does not mean you know BJJ. In fact Kimura and variations of it has existed in wrestling and other arts as well. Just saying before it is used as proof of something.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> EDIT: You know what. Feel how you feel. I believe in mixing and then we can agree to disagree.
> 
> Do not need to write a big post about how your opinion comes out as silly sometimes.
> 
> WC grappling is most likely not suited to beat a grappler on the ground. This is the reason why I train GJJ instead. So what kind of point are you trying to make?
> 
> You want to claim that just because the art has a anti-grappling or whatever to call it that is best suited against non-grapplers that it should just lie down and die out? Are you claiming it is inferior in stand-up fighting? Are you claiming a BJJ artist can beat any and all stand-up fights?



My original point was that Bjj was designed to deal with both skilled strikers and grapplers, and that it has stand up aspects.

My purpose in showing that WC vs Karate video was to showcase that even skilled strikers can end up on the ground and end up fighting like novices. Another good example is Boztepe vs W. Cheung and their little tussle at a demonstration. In other words, it's pretty good to know how to fight off the ground.



> I just dont see what kind of point you want to make. MMA is not a proof, but it exists because mixing arts is sometimes a good idea. It is all about the style you have yourself. Not how pure your style is compared to a specific art. Better to mix all those colors together and make something unique for you.



I agree with that.




Phobius said:


> Being so into this. You if anyone should know Kimura does not mean you know BJJ. In fact Kimura and variations of it has existed in wrestling and other arts as well. Just saying before it is used as proof of something.



Yeah, but it's only called "Kimura" in Bjj and MMA. In Judo it's still called by its Japanese name. Hunt trains in MMA gyms, so clearly that's where he picked it up.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> My original point was that Bjj was designed to deal with both skilled strikers and grapplers, and that it has stand up aspects.
> 
> My purpose in showing that WC vs Karate video was to showcase that even skilled strikers can end up on the ground and end up fighting like novices. Another good example is Boztepe vs W. Cheung and their little tussle at a demonstration. In other words, it's pretty good to know how to fight off the ground.



True, which is why I think the "anti-grappling", hate that term, was added to WC because of needing something. As such it is not refined enough and would only work against unskilled grapplers. WC is an art that I personally think sadly prepares you for grappling in such a way that you easily trick yourself to thinking you can handle a grappler in a clinch. This of course is not doable unless you learn how a grappler would work, and by testing it against realistic movements and attacks.

With time I think that more realistic training will be integrated into WC, but as my sifu said (and not a direct quote), why invent something when it already exists in BJJ/GJJ.

Most WC on YouTube that come in contact with a grappler seem to be standing still. Ironic since WC being a close combat art should never be standing still when someone is within range. Footwork is key and it seems quite a lot of chunners on YouTube (false representation of chunners perhaps) lack footwork altogether.

As for that video, there are many possible reasons why his grappling skill is even subpar compared with an already potentially subpar grappling training in WC. (Not saying someones WC school here have not improved and perfect grappling techniques/concepts). I simply do not know why that is. As for Boztepe and W Cheung, Boztepe put a lot more attention to ground fighting after that event, realizing its importance.

It was at a time when some chunners were growing too confident with their skills while standing up I believe. Neglecting the rest.



Hanzou said:


> I agree with that.



Alright, this was my big concern that you were against or degrading the value of it. If not, I am cool.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but it's only called "Kimura" in Bjj and MMA. In Judo it's still called by its Japanese name. Hunt trains in MMA gyms, so clearly that's where he picked it up.



Agreed, especially given that the name is taken from the source of the technique when first losing to it if I do not remember incorrectly.

EDIT: Forgot my question but did he call it "kimura" in that case? If he did then that would serve as proof indeed that he knew BJJ or had at least taken some technique from BJJ.

Or he called it Kimura so the world would understand what he is talking about since after all is the name used in MMA mostly for that technique.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, just like a TKD practitioner would be offended if someone said that TKD practitioners only know how to throw kicks.



I am a TKD practitioner and I am not offended by a statement such as that.



Hanzou said:


> You have to be standing in order to take someone to the ground.



Not necessarily.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kimbo slice. Yoshihiro Akiyama . Fedor Emelianenko. Hidehiko Yoshida. Kazuo Misaki.

From what I can see none of those guys have any Brazilian jiu jitsu and have done very well in mma. Still though, your point is clear it is a very common art in it.

I think I would be fine without it but since my sifu is a current blue belt in Gracie Jiu jitsu I won't object to learning it. I can also peruse furthering my Judo at a later time.


----------



## Buka

I wonder what Master Ken would say about all this?


----------



## Ironbear24

Buka said:


> I wonder what Master Ken would say about all this?



Attack the groin.


----------



## Phobius

The best anti grappling technique in the world. Tap.


----------



## Ironbear24

Phobius said:


> The best anti grappling technique in the world. Tap.



Why is anti grappling even a term? We don't call blocking "anti striking". All anti grappling techniques are ironically grappling maneuvers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> Why is anti grappling even a term? We don't call blocking "anti striking". All anti grappling techniques are ironically grappling maneuvers.


You may not call "arm blocking" as "anti-striking" but the "arm wrapping" is definitely "anti-striking".


----------



## Skullpunch

Ironbear24 said:


> So he exposed to it but it didn't take it traditionally? Either way seemed to work out for him.
> 
> How about mark hunt?



Mark Hunt is a bjj brown belt.  Don't know under who but I know he did ATT and Gracie Barra for years.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Why is anti grappling even a term? We don't call blocking "anti striking". All anti grappling techniques are ironically grappling maneuvers.



Basically it is used to define how you defend to remove that element rather than engage in it.

So anti striking would technically be takedowns. Because you are not blocking to return strikes.

We do anti jujitsu under that idea. Where we defend submissions but don't really try to apply them back.

Look it defines a concept that is important so I don't have an issue with it.


----------



## Charlemagne

I really don't get the premise of this thread.  The last time that pure strikers fought pure grapplers in the UFC was over 20 years ago.  That just doesn't happen anymore.  Others have noted that there are some really good strikers these days in the UFC getting knockouts, etc. and that is true.  However, there still a bunch of guys getting submissions also, and many of the guys who are known as strikers are also BJJ blackbelts, like Anderson Silva.  All of them train both striking and grappling, and those who pretty much avoided it like Conor McGregor, are training the heck out of it now.


----------



## Mr.J

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


I prefer to grapple cause I am 5'10" and I have the legs of someone who is 5'5". I have no real talent at punching. As for if one is better then the other it just depends like all things. I think it's because people like injuries and grappling has a better chance of that to be the outcome. It feeds that inner blood lust in us all.


----------



## Ironbear24

Mr.J said:


> I prefer to grapple cause I am 5'10" and I have the legs of someone who is 5'5". I have no real talent at punching. As for if one is better then the other it just depends like all things. I think it's because people like injuries and grappling has a better chance of that to be the outcome. It feeds that inner blood lust in us all.



I would say striking sparring has more chances to get hurt. Grappling you can always tap if you feel it's too much for you.


----------



## moonhill99

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?



Some people do better than other people. Take Holly Holm for the most part her striking and footwork is better than most people to keep grappler away from her.

But if she was fighting on a city bus or in an elevator Ronda Rousey may win.  As much of her game plan would have to be really different.

Some people just take the pushes and kicks and grab you!! And if you just standing there not moving way it makes it even easier for the grapplers. It just that Holly Holm is really good at always moving away. So Ronda Rousey is chasing her all the time and taking the pushes and kicks.

Other people not good at moving away and make it easier for the grapplers.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> I would say striking sparring has more chances to get hurt. Grappling you can always tap if you feel it's too much for you.



It is a lot harder to cripple someone striking.

You get two people's body weight roll the wrong way on a knee and you are not getting woken up.  You are going to hospital.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is a lot harder to cripple someone striking.
> 
> You get two people's body weight roll the wrong way on a knee and you are not getting woken up.  You are going to hospital.


It doesn't have to be a crippling injury like that however but injury in general.  The rate of concussions, both the stereotypical and Concussions & Repeated Minor Head Traumas
 Bruised ribs and just contusions overall are also not uncommon.  However the "crippling" injuries as you note them while more common in grappling are less common that the "typical" MA injuries.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> I would say striking sparring has more chances to get hurt. Grappling you can always tap if you feel it's too much for you.


Agree! 

You 

- can take your opponent down 100 times daily. 
- can't knock your opponent down 100 times daily.

It's much 

- easier for a grappler to accumulate his true experience. 
- difficult for a striker to accumulate his true experience unless you count "point sparring" as true experience..


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> can take your opponent down 100 times daily.



That partner better know how to ukemi otherwise his or her *** is going be raw.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> It doesn't have to be a crippling injury like that however but injury in general.  The rate of concussions, both the stereotypical and Concussions & Repeated Minor Head Traumas
> Bruised ribs and just contusions overall are also not uncommon.  However the "crippling" injuries as you note them while more common in grappling are less common that the "typical" MA injuries.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Yeah but having your shoulder dislocated or knee wrecked is a lot more devastating at the time.  Generally.

(i do habe a mate got punched so hard it really messed him up. And another who broke his leg shin kicking a dude. )


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah but having your shoulder dislocated or knee wrecked is a lot more devastating at the time.  Generally.
> 
> (i do habe a mate got punched so hard it really messed him up. And another who broke his leg shin kicking a dude. )


Again no one is questioning the potential for crippling injuries.  Where I study we do not do point sparing, especially with weapons.  You GO for 30 seconds...break for 15...go for 30 etc.  (It's also done as sort of conditioning.) I have walked out with fists looking like boxing fractures because a lucky training knife strike got me between the pads at the knuckles, bruised clavicles from overhead strikes etc. (The only protection we use is head/eye, hands and forearms.  It even gets to grappling sometimes, on the weapon side.  if you lose a weapon, you don't pick it up, to dangerous, so you try to get the other guy's.  

Regardless these arent not crippling injuries but after every sparring class someone is nursing something as we head to the parking lot.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It is a lot harder to cripple someone striking.


Not necessarily.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Not necessarily.



Actually nobody watch that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Actually nobody watch that.







I know exactly how painful that is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> That partner better know how to ukemi otherwise his or her *** is going be raw.


If you train the throwing art, you should consider your body as a "bouncing ball" that can bounce back up from the ground without even use your hands.


----------



## Spinedoc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train the throwing art, you should consider your body as a "bouncing ball" that can bounce back up from the ground without even use your hands.



That's good ukemi, good breakfall. You don't even have to bounce, you should be able to do yoko kaiten, and roll up.

You can also do much, much softer falls. The hard fall that Judo and jujutsu players like has a finite limit. You talk to the guys that are in their 70's and they will tell you that you cannot do this forever.....

This is much, much easier on the body, while still allowing you to do a high fall.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Spinedoc said:


> You can also do much, much softer falls.


Sometime you don't have choice because you truly don't know which part of your body will land first. When that happen, all you can care about is to protect your head. You don't have the luxury to consider "comfort".


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I know exactly how painful that is.



Yeah happened to a mate of mine. It does not look fun AR all.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> That's good ukemi, good breakfall. You don't even have to bounce, you should be able to do yoko kaiten, and roll up.
> 
> You can also do much, much softer falls. The hard fall that Judo and jujutsu players like has a finite limit. You talk to the guys that are in their 70's and they will tell you that you cannot do this forever.....
> 
> This is much, much easier on the body, while still allowing you to do a high fall.



It is dependent on the throw.

There are a few front ones that will make it worse if you roll.
And some you just can't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> It is dependent on the throw.
> 
> There are a few front ones that will make it worse if you roll.
> And some you just can't.


Here is a good example. When your opponent holds on one of your legs and horse back kick your other leg off the ground, you will fall like an airplane crash into the ground with head first.


----------



## Spinedoc

Of course, sometimes you are not given a choice, but learning soft high falls can definitely allow you to practice until you are much much older. It's the same with Isoyama Shihans version of Kata Guruma. It's going to be a hard fall.....there's no choice, but when you can, it's good learn soft fall techniques too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Spinedoc said:


> but learning soft high falls can definitely allow you to practice until you are much much older.


Agree! The "soft fall" training can also help you (general YOU) to get back up from the ground much faster.


----------



## Charlemagne

Ironbear24 said:


> From where? If we want to consider UFC I see tons of fighters winning via TKO.


----------



## PhotonGuy

If grappling really did beat striking than everybody would be doing it. The grappling arts would be what people would take up if they wanted to learn martial arts and the schools that taught striking arts would not have any students and would have no business. But as we know the striking arts are alive and well today with lots of students so that goes to show you that its not the art its the person doing it that is the determining factor as to its effectiveness.


----------



## Charlemagne

PhotonGuy said:


> If grappling really did beat striking than everybody would be doing it. The grappling arts would be what people would take up if they wanted to learn martial arts and the schools that taught striking arts would not have any students and would have no business. But as we know the striking arts are alive and well today with lots of students so that goes to show you that its not the art its the person doing it that is the determining factor as to its effectiveness.



I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that people simply don't know what they don't know, so popularity is probably not a good measure of effectiveness.  Plus, grappling is hard, really hard.  It's physically exhausting, and frustrating as all get out, particularly in the beginning. Because of that, many people are simply not going to join, or stick it out even if they do.  

Grappling is also much less available than striking for most people. I live in a pretty large city, and there are 5 BJJ schools and 2 Judo clubs in a city of 1.3 million people.  There are about 60 TKD schools, 7 Karate schools, and 5 Kung Fu/JKD schools.  That doesn't count MT and Boxing, and there are several of those as well.  I suspect most cities have a similar proportion.


----------



## Charlemagne

Ironbear24 said:


> I would say striking sparring has more chances to get hurt. Grappling you can always tap if you feel it's too much for you.



I would agree with that to a point, but I would add the stipulation that you have a good training partner, and you are experienced enough to know when it is coming on.  For example, there is a particular blue belt in the place where I train Jiu-Jitsu currently that is a really good guy, but also pretty strong, and who doesn't have very good control.  I've rolled with him twice, and the first time I got kicked in the face when he tried to put an arm bar on me too quickly and couldn't get his leg all the way around.  The second time, he put a different arm bar on me from guard, and darn near hyperextended my elbow before I could tap.


----------



## Ironbear24

I don't agree that grappling is more difficult. Maybe when it comes to stamina for sure but striking brings on a whole new type of hassles. Try walking around with bruises and aches all the time on your body. A couple of people think I get in bar fights often.

I guess grappling is more exhausting while striking is more painful. Yesterday we had to get hit in the stomach several times while kiaing to practice body conditioning.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Charlemagne said:


> I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that people simply don't know what they don't know, so popularity is probably not a good measure of effectiveness.  Plus, grappling is hard, really hard.  It's physically exhausting, and frustrating as all get out, particularly in the beginning. Because of that, many people are simply not going to join, or stick it out even if they do.
> 
> Grappling is also much less available than striking for most people. I live in a pretty large city, and there are 5 BJJ schools and 2 Judo clubs in a city of 1.3 million people.  There are about 60 TKD schools, 7 Karate schools, and 5 Kung Fu/JKD schools.  That doesn't count MT and Boxing, and there are several of those as well.  I suspect most cities have a similar proportion.



Today its common knowledge about the effectiveness of the grappling arts. What with all the rage of the Gracie system and of grappling for the last few decades most people would've at least heard of how good the grappling arts are, even the non martial artists. Grappling is hard but so is striking. With grappling you've got to have stamina but with striking you have to have coordination, speed, and precision. Also striking also involves being able to take hits so you do take lots of punishment. For that reason somebody might take up grappling instead of striking, they don't want to be hit as much. With some of the grappling arts such as Judo you can get slammed but there are those arts which focus mostly on mat work such as the Gracie style.

And concerning the availability of grappling, if there was a bigger demand for grappling there would be more availability. Perhaps one of the reasons its less available than striking arts is that its demand isn't as high. If there were more people wanting to do grappling arts it makes sense more schools would open up that teach it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Ironbear24 said:


> Yesterday we had to get hit in the stomach several times while kiaing to practice body conditioning.



That sounds like a good exercise but you need a partner to do it. I've been thinking of designing a system where I can do it without a partner, dropping a kettle bell from a pully in my stomach while lying on my back might work.


----------



## Spinedoc

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree that grappling is more difficult. Maybe when it comes to stamina for sure but striking brings on a whole new type of hassles. Try walking around with bruises and aches all the time on your body. A couple of people think I get in bar fights often.
> 
> I guess grappling is more exhausting while striking is more painful. Yesterday we had to get hit in the stomach several times while kiaing to practice body conditioning.



Disagree...it's a different type of pain. I've boxed, trained in TKD and Karate and other striking arts......never had as much pain as being put into different locks.

Black Belt Magazine even just recently published this....

A Lesson in Pain Management! What Karate Stylists Can Learn From Aikido Stylists  – - Black Belt


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree that grappling is more difficult. Maybe when it comes to stamina for sure but striking brings on a whole new type of hassles. Try walking around with bruises and aches all the time on your body. A couple of people think I get in bar fights often.
> 
> I guess grappling is more exhausting while striking is more painful. Yesterday we had to get hit in the stomach several times while kiaing to practice body conditioning.



A lot of us do both.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> A lot of us do both.




Or have done both. I started with striking arts, and can still strike pretty well if needed, but I find the grappling arts more difficult, nuanced, and harder, both physically and mentally. That's MY opinion though, I'm sure many others think and feel the opposite.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree that grappling is more difficult.


Between hip throw and jab, which technique is harder to learn?

A hip throw will require that your

- right foot land in front of your opponent's right foot,
- left foot land in front of his left foot,
- one arm wrap around his arm,
- one arm wrap around his waist.
- use your hip to bounce his body off the ground,
- pull his body over your back, and
- throw him in front of you.

A jab is much simpler than that.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Or have done both. I started with striking arts, and can still strike pretty well if needed, but I find the grappling arts more difficult, nuanced, and harder, both physically and mentally. That's MY opinion though, I'm sure many others think and feel the opposite.



Yeah.  With us we have this small issue of being sat on and beat up.  So i really want to win the grapple.

If you loose a striking exchange you take a step sideways and recover. Or collapse. Which is not as bad.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  With us we have this small issue of being sat on and beat up.  So i really want to win the grapple.
> 
> If you loose a striking exchange you take a step sideways and recover. Or collapse. Which is not as bad.



Or get knocked out which is bad.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Between hip throw and jab, which technique is harder to learn?
> 
> A hip throw will require that your
> 
> - right foot land in front of your opponent's right foot,
> - left foot land in front of his left foot,
> - one arm wrap around his arm,
> - one arm wrap around his waist.
> - use your hip to bounce his body off the ground,
> - pull his body over your back, and
> - throw him in front of you.
> 
> A jab is much simpler than that.



I didn't say more difficult to learn. I am saying they are different when it comes difficulty training in them. Grappling is very taxing on your stamina while striking is very taxing on your body. You can only get punched and kicked so many times before your body simply can't handle anymore, however you can grapple for hours so long as you have the stamina for it.


----------



## Charlemagne

PhotonGuy said:


> And concerning the availability of grappling, if there was a bigger demand for grappling there would be more availability. Perhaps one of the reasons its less available than striking arts is that its demand isn't as high. If there were more people wanting to do grappling arts it makes sense more schools would open up that teach it.



That's exactly what people said in Southern California about 15 years ago.  So Cal is pretty much the center of the Jiu-Jitsu universe these days.  Since then, Gracie Barra has opened up about 35 schools in that same area, and every one of them is full.  Grappling will peak at some point, but I don't think we are there yet.


----------



## Charlemagne

Ironbear24 said:


> I don't agree that grappling is more difficult. Maybe when it comes to stamina for sure but striking brings on a whole new type of hassles. Try walking around with bruises and aches all the time on your body. A couple of people think I get in bar fights often.
> 
> I guess grappling is more exhausting while striking is more painful. Yesterday we had to get hit in the stomach several times while kiaing to practice body conditioning.



I have trained striking arts in the past, and agree on the bruises.  This even happens in FMA, so I have to wear long sleeved shirts to work all the time since my arms are bruised up from knife tapping on a regular basis.  I still believe that grappling is far harder.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Or get knocked out which is bad.



At least you get to stop.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Charlemagne said:


> That's exactly what people said in Southern California about 15 years ago.  So Cal is pretty much the center of the Jiu-Jitsu universe these days.  Since then, Gracie Barra has opened up about 35 schools in that same area, and every one of them is full.  Grappling will peak at some point, but I don't think we are there yet.



Well So Cal is home of some of the Gracies and I did once visit their academy in Torrance. Anyway Royce Gracie trains in Muai Thai and also has a black belt in some style of Karate, so that would go to show you that even a hardcore grappler sees the value of training in the striking arts.


----------



## Ironbear24

PhotonGuy said:


> Well So Cal is home of some of the Gracies and I did once visit their academy in Torrance. Anyway Royce Gracie trains in Muai Thai and also has a black belt in some style of Karate, so that would go to show you that even a hardcore grappler sees the value of training in the striking arts.



I thought he ridiculed his relatives for taking other styles saying " all they need is jiu jitsu."? Maybe the source I read that from was false.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Here is an interview with Royce Gracie.
Royce Gracie interview!


----------



## Kickboxer101

PhotonGuy said:


> Here is an interview with Royce Gracie.
> Royce Gracie interview!


Got to love his advice train hard and don't take steroids when 2 years before this interview he tested positive for steroids.


----------



## Sub Zero

I might be a tad late to this shindig but to any who still  believe grapplers always beats strikers then you may want to watch Anderson Silva's matches against Thales Leites and Demian Maia.  Both were BJJ world champions and both got emberassed by The Spider.  Ditto with Fedor's one sided beat down on Mark Coleman.  

In all the aforementioned fights the grapplers tools were useless because they couldn't get the fight in their elements.   All the BJJ in the world won't help you if you can't get the battle to the floor.  It always boils down to the warrior not the weapon.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Sub Zero said:


> I might be a tad late to this shindig but to any who still  believe grapplers always beats strikers then you may want to watch Anderson Silva's matches against Thales Leites and Demian Maia.  Both were BJJ world champions and both got emberassed by The Spider.  Ditto with Fedor's one sided beat down on Mark Coleman.
> 
> In all the aforementioned fights the grapplers tools were useless because they couldn't get the fight in their elements.   All the BJJ in the world won't help you if you can't get the battle to the floor.  It always boils down to the warrior not the weapon.


It's not always as and black and white as that Anderson silva is mainly a  Thai boxer but he's also a bjj black belt under the noguiera brothers but the fact is grapplers don't always beat strikers and strikers won't always beat grapplers. In any fight anything can my best example Maia vs Marquadt. Marquadt caught him with a punch seconds in Maia was out cold In like 10 seconds so his grappling was useless then. If they fought again Maia might've got him down and submitted him no way of knowing


----------



## Charlemagne

Sub Zero said:


> I might be a tad late to this shindig but to any who still  believe grapplers always beats strikers then you may want to watch Anderson Silva's matches against Thales Leites and Demian Maia.  Both were BJJ world champions and both got emberassed by The Spider.  Ditto with Fedor's one sided beat down on Mark Coleman.
> 
> In all the aforementioned fights the grapplers tools were useless because they couldn't get the fight in their elements.   All the BJJ in the world won't help you if you can't get the battle to the floor.  It always boils down to the warrior not the weapon.



All of which needs to be understood in the context of the many rule changes to favor strikers that have been implemented since the early days of the UFC.  Today, we have refs standing fighters up, rounds with time limits that don't favor the slow methodical approach that is taught in BJJ, and gloves which protect the fighter's hands so they can strike in a way that they could not without.


----------



## Sub Zero

In all four of those matches the grapplers couldn't get the fight to the ground, despite their best efforts.  Leites and Maia's takedown were no threat to Silva's TD defense.  He was better at implementing his game plan better than both of them so he didn't even need to use his BJJ.

Colman tried to take Fedor down and The LAST Emperor pummeled him as soon as they clinched up.  The rules being in favor of strikers weren't the issue in those fights it was the superior skill sets of Silva and Fedor.


----------



## frank raud

PhotonGuy said:


> Well So Cal is home of some of the Gracies and I did once visit their academy in Torrance. Anyway Royce Gracie trains in Muai Thai and also has a black belt in some style of Karate, so that would go to show you that even a hardcore grappler sees the value of training in the striking arts.


So, someone who competes in the UFC trains in multiple arts? Shocking.


----------



## Hanzou

Sub Zero said:


> In all four of those matches the grapplers couldn't get the fight to the ground, despite their best efforts.  Leites and Maia's takedown were no threat to Silva's TD defense.  He was better at implementing his game plan better than both of them so he didn't even need to use his BJJ.



Check out Sonnen vs Silva 1 where Sonnen took Silva to the ground constantly and dominated him for 4 rounds. If not for Silva's Bjj background, he would have lost that fight.


----------



## msmitht

Because they practice with full resistance all of the time. 
Many are saying that of that were true then where are all of the bjj schools then? It takes a long time to get good at and become a bjj instructor.  There are more nowadays and are in high demand. Almost all are doing well and readily accept black belts of all ages and styles on the mat and hand them a white one. Have a friend in Scottsdale who opened a bjj school 1 year ago and has 260 students. 
For the majority it is more effective


----------



## Hanzou

msmitht said:


> Because they practice with full resistance all of the time.
> Many are saying that of that were true then where are all of the bjj schools then? It takes a long time to get good at and become a bjj instructor.  There are more nowadays and are in high demand. Almost all are doing well and readily accept black belts of all ages and styles on the mat and hand them a white one. Have a friend in Scottsdale who opened a bjj school 1 year ago and has 260 students.
> For the majority it is more effective



Can't argue with that. I've been offered instructional positions in various striking schools, and I'm only a purple belt.


----------



## moonhill99

Sub Zero said:


> In all four of those matches the grapplers couldn't get the fight to the ground, despite their best efforts.  Leites and Maia's takedown were no threat to Silva's TD defense.  He was better at implementing his game plan better than both of them so he didn't even need to use his BJJ.
> 
> Colman tried to take Fedor down and The LAST Emperor pummeled him as soon as they clinched up.  The rules being in favor of strikers weren't the issue in those fights it was the superior skill sets of Silva and Fedor.



I don't think anyone here is saying grapplers will always beat skilled fighters. I mean look at Ronda Rousey her Judo is really good but she could not get Holly Holmes to the ground.

Well Miesha Tate got Holly Holmes to the ground couple of times but even with her she had to really work on it to get  her to the ground.

Some really skilled strikers are just really hard to get to the ground.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Can't argue with that. I've been offered instructional positions in various striking schools, and I'm only a purple belt.


I know a guy who has a Gracie center as a purple belt. He started a "study group" shortly after he started studying GJJ. Where there is a need, even a well-trained blue belt in GJJ can bring a lot of value.


----------



## wingchun100

I think a lot of people don't train in the middle ground between punching and grappling. This is wing chun's sweet spot though.

I also think people train in a way where they feel they have to have a lot of wind up to their punches in order to generate any power. You need to learn how to get a powerful punch without relying on muscle. Look at Bruce Lee's one inch punch. Something like that would be a very useful tool to beat a grappler, even if they already had you in a clinch.

Then again, when you are in a clinch or on the ground, your body mechanics won't be what they should because you are not in an ideal position...AKA, standing up and rooted in the ground. However, there are ways to train around that too.

I also like one of the previous comments that a takedown is easier than a KO. Some people are tough as hell and can take quite a beating.

Last but not least, we seem to be leaning toward grappling arts being better IN COMPETITION. In a bar fight, you can't grapple when some alpha male and his five friends are coming at you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> In a bar fight, you can't grapple when some alpha male and his five friends are coming at you.


Sure you can - well, as much as you can do anything in those circumstances. You'll need strikes, too (your original point, I think), but grappling works well for controlling one person, which can be used to increase your odds. Now, if you're talking about grappling that requires you go to the ground, I'd agree, but that's a smaller part of grappling as a whole.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Sure you can - well, as much as you can do anything in those circumstances. You'll need strikes, too (your original point, I think), but grappling works well for controlling one person, which can be used to increase your odds. Now, if you're talking about grappling that requires you go to the ground, I'd agree, but that's a smaller part of grappling as a whole.


 
You are right. I meant if it went to the ground. I mean, even in my training I have kind of sort of used grappling when sparring against multiple opponents. (I say "kind of sort of" because I don't want to sound like I am arrogantly proclaiming to be ANY kind of expert, or even a beginner, in grappling.) I don't mean I got them into submission holds, but I did get in close enough where I could use one person to block the others from getting close to me. Reminds me of "Operation Human Shield" from the SOUTH PARK movie.


----------



## msmitht

wingchun100 said:


> I think a lot of people don't train in the middle ground between punching and grappling. This is wing chun's sweet spot though.
> 
> I also think people train in a way where they feel they have to have a lot of wind up to their punches in order to generate any power. You need to learn how to get a powerful punch without relying on muscle. Look at Bruce Lee's one inch punch. Something like that would be a very useful tool to beat a grappler, even if they already had you in a clinch.
> 
> Then again, when you are in a clinch or on the ground, your body mechanics won't be what they should because you are not in an ideal position...AKA, standing up and rooted in the ground. However, there are ways to train around that too.
> 
> I also like one of the previous comments that a takedown is easier than a KO. Some people are tough as hell and can take quite a beating.
> 
> Last but not least, we seem to be leaning toward grappling arts being better IN COMPETITION. In a bar fight, you can't grapple when some alpha male and his five friends are coming at you.


Well as a black belt in BJJ and having spent time in the Corps I can tell you that the grappling Ive had to use in self defense really worked. Competed a few times as a blue belt but that's it.  Having been in a few bar brawls, none that I started, I can tell you that there is barely enough room to punch. Best tactic is to stay alert, keep head covered and find an exit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

msmitht said:


> Well as a black belt in BJJ and having spent time in the Corps I can tell you that the grappling Ive had to use in self defense really worked. Competed a few times as a blur belt but that's it.  Having been in a few bar brawls, none that I started, I can tell you that there is barely enough room to punch. Best tactic is to stay alert, keep head covered and find an exit.


"blur belt" - that's some fast BJJ!


----------



## msmitht

gpseymour said:


> "blur belt" - that's some fast BJJ!


LOL. I had just corrected it when I got alert.


----------



## Juany118

msmitht said:


> Well as a black belt in BJJ and having spent time in the Corps I can tell you that the grappling Ive had to use in self defense really worked. Competed a few times as a blue belt but that's it.  Having been in a few bar brawls, none that I started, I can tell you that there is barely enough room to punch. Best tactic is to stay alert, keep head covered and find an exit.


Well that depends on the art, in terms of punching.  WC, and a couple other arts use strikes that basically only require the distance one would need to touch someone while standing up straight.  Also a punch doesn't need to be at full extension to impact with force.  Then let's forget punches and look to kicks to the knee and lower, knees and elbows.

I agree with your last bit though.  The biggest pucker factor I ever have is going into a bar, on the job, where a fight might break out due to experience.  Someone always brings friends, even if it's just to pull you off so you can't take them into custody, there are scores of weapons of opportunity, bottles, glasses, pool cures and balls etc.  and the absolute last place you want to end up in that environment is on the ground tied up with one guy because as I noted above, their friends are coming and disengaging in order to address them is far more difficult.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## msmitht

Juany118 said:


> Well that depends on the art, in terms of punching.  WC, and a couple other arts use strikes that basically only require the distance one would need to touch someone while standing up straight.  Also a punch doesn't need to be at full extension to impact with force.  Then let's forget punches and look to kicks to the knee and lower, knees and elbows.
> 
> I agree with your last bit though.  The biggest pucker factor I ever have is going into a bar, on the job, where a fight might break out due to experience.  Someone always brings friends, even if it's just to pull you off so you can't take them into custody, there are scores of weapons of opportunity, bottles, glasses, pool cures and balls etc.  and the absolute last place you want to end up in that environment is on the ground tied up with one guy because as I noted above, their friends are coming and disengaging in order to address them is far more difficult.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


 I should have said "Hard to punch when a mob is pressing you from all sides".


----------



## Juany118

msmitht said:


> I should have said "Hard to punch when a mob is pressing you from all sides".



A WC punch is weird though.  It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it.  So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there.  Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable.  Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall.  Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## wingchun100

Juany118 said:


> A WC punch is weird though.  It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it.  So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there.  Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable.  Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall.  Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.


 

A very good example.

You can learn to punch hard without a lot of wind-up. Has anyone ever seen KILL BILL? I am thinking of the scene where Pai Mei teaches the Bride how to punch through the piece of wood when she is super close. It might be a goofy movie, but to me that part was based on Bruce Lee's one-inch punch.


----------



## wingchun100

drop bear said:


>


 
More proof you don't need a lot of wind-up. LOL


----------



## Ivan

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


For starters, striking involves hitting someone with your fist, whereas with grappling, you're hitting someone with the planet. No matter which way you put it, the hardest and most accurate or well-placed punch in history will always pale to the result of slamming someone's entire bodyweight onto stone-cold pavement. Furthermore, UFC and MMA in general, have rulesets that give grapplers an advantage; after all, the UFC was made to promote BJJ. As an example, strikes aren't allowed at opponents laying down on the ground whilst you're standing up, but it is perfectly fine vice versa.

Lastly, almost all striking arts lack any defence against grapplers. Boxing teaches you to box, and to defeat opponents throwing punches. The same for kickboxing, modern Karate, and Taekwondo. None of these martial arts have any valuable defences against, say, a single-leg takedown, a back-take, or a suplex. Striking is by definition one-dimensional. It only works under very specific conditions. Grappling is an al-rounder: perfect regardless of whether your opponent is taller, smaller, faster, or stronger.

A proffessional striker will almost always get caught by a punch from an amateur fighter, even if their skill and experience far outweighs that of the amateur's. But grappling is methodical. There is no such thing as "lucky takes" or  "lucky takedowns".


----------



## Ironbear24

You're replying to a 5 year old thread? Ok, I've had instances where someone slips and goes down with ease during a clinch so yeah it does happen. Striking is also very methodical and "lucky hits" don't happen, if you got it you either made a mistake, or are "trading" their hit so you can get past their guard and hit them harder.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?​Because anti-striking is possible, but anti-grappling is impossible.

If you use "rhino guard", hold your big fist with both hands, extend your arms, hide your head behind your arms, and run toward your opponent like a mad man, your opponent's attack won't be able to land on your head (it may still land on your body). When you charge in, if you can obtain a clinch and take your opponent down, the striking game end there and the grappling game start.





​


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?​Because anti-striking is possible, but anti-grappling is impossible.
> 
> If you use "rhino guard", hold your big fist with both hands, extend your arms, hide your head behind your arms, and run toward your opponent like a mad man, your opponent's attack won't be able to land on your head (it may still land on your body). When you charge in, if you can obtain a clinch and take your opponent down, the striking game end there and the grappling game start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


What stops the opponent from dropping down to a deeper stance while moving off-line and punching to the face (from their lowered position). Or slipping and going for an uppercut?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> What stops the opponent from dropping down to a deeper stance while moving off-line and punching to the face (from their lowered position). Or slipping and going for an uppercut?


I don't think your uppercut can reach to your opponent's head when he fully extends his both arms.

The purpose of your rhino guard is to drill a hole between your opponent's arms. When your opponent moves his arms, your rhino guard move with him.

The rhino guard can be used to achieve many goals:

1. Protect your head to the maximum.
2. Separate your opponent's arms away from his head.
3. Bait your opponent's kick (so you can catch his kicking leg).
4. Bait your opponent's arm contact (so you can wrap his arm).
5. ...

It's a good strategy to be used by a wrestler to deal with a boxer.

The Chinese zombie arms is similar strategy too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think your uppercut can reach to your opponent's head when he fully extends his both arms.
> 
> The purpose of your rhino guard is to drill a hole between your opponent's arms. When your opponent moves his arms, your rhino guard move with him.
> 
> The rhino guard can be used to achieve many goals:
> 
> 1. Protect your head to the maximum.
> 2. Separate your opponent's arms away from his head.
> 3. Bait your opponent's kick (so you can catch his kicking leg).
> 4. Bait your opponent's arm contact (so you can wrap his arm).
> 5. ...
> 
> It's a good strategy to be used by a wrestler to deal with a boxer.
> 
> The Chinese zombie arms is similar strategy too.
> 
> View attachment 27196


A push-block would keep the rhino guard from following while you slip it. Once you've slipped it, the uppercut can reach. Mind you, someone better than me at slipping can likely slip it without needing the push-block.


----------



## Flying Crane

All kinds of ways to attack the arms, and then attack the head once his arms hurt like hell.


----------



## Bobbycat

First unexpected strike is most dangerous. I always keep my right hand near my stomach, put the left elbow in the right palm, and touch the chin by my left fingers. This pose is like I think about something, but factually I am in the perfect defensive position.  A couple of times it helped me in my life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> A push-block would keep the rhino guard from following while you slip it. Once you've slipped it, the uppercut can reach. Mind you, someone better than me at slipping can likely slip it without needing the push-block.


When your arm make contact on a rhino guard, that rhino guard will change into octopus arms and try to wrap your arms. So the rhino guard and octopus arms are usually integrated.

We are talking about the missing link between the striking art and the grappling art. IMO, both "rhino guard" and "octopus arms" can fill into that missing area.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> All kinds of ways to attack the arms, and then attack the head once his arms hurt like hell.


If you are thinking about to attack the rhino guard, that's exactly what your opponent want you to do. Your opponent wants to tangle his arms with your arms to obtain a clinch.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are thinking about to attack the rhino guard, that's exactly what your opponent want you to do. Your opponent want to tangle his arms with your arms to obtain a clinch.


Might work.  Might not.  Nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Might work.  Might not.  Nothing is guaranteed.


As I have said, if a wrestler doesn't know any striking art and has to deal with a boxer (no kicking involved), this is the best strategy that he can come up with.


----------



## Bobbycat

Usually, a striker/boxer performs several strikes at different levels and quickly pull hands back.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


Because people are silly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Bobbycat said:


> Usually, a striker/boxer performs several strikes at different levels and quickly pull hands back.


True. This is why a wrestler needs to move in. It's very difficult to wrap a boxer's leading arms. But it's much easier to wrap his upper arm, shoulder, or head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are thinking about to attack the rhino guard, that's exactly what your opponent want you to do. Your opponent wants to tangle his arms with your arms to obtain a clinch.


Lots of ways to attack arms without tangling in them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your arm make contact on a rhino guard, that rhino guard will change into octopus arms and try to wrap your arms. So the rhino guard and octopus arms are usually integrated.
> 
> We are talking about the missing link between the striking art and the grappling art. IMO, both "rhino guard" and "octopus arms" can fill into that missing area.


Hard to tangle with arms when the other guy is to the outside of your arm, which is really the only place he can be if he's slipping the rhino guard. Your arms can only bend inward or upward, and there's no reason to have contact with the arms in either of those directions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Hard to tangle with arms when the other guy is to the outside of your arm, which is really the only place he can be if he's slipping the rhino guard. Your arms can only bend inward or upward, and there's no reason to have contact with the arms in either of those directions.


Not sure I can picture this. Could you provide more detail?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not sure I can picture this. Could you provide more detail?


Rhino guard comes at you. You slip to either side and push block (basically, laying a hand against the outside of the arm closest to you, to keep it from following). Now, the guy changes to octopus arms, but you're positioned outside his elbow, so he has few options for grabbing. You could also replace that push-block with a strike to the arm, if you have a strike that would be effective at that angle.


----------



## CB Jones

gpseymour said:


> Rhino guard comes at you. You slip to either side and push block (basically, laying a hand against the outside of the arm closest to you, to keep it from following). Now, the guy changes to octopus arms, but you're positioned outside his elbow, so he has few options for grabbing. You could also replace that push-block with a strike to the arm, if you have a strike that would be effective at that angle.



Straight right lead, check hook, and keep moving around the outside his lead leg.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Rhino guard comes at you. You slip to either side and push block (basically, laying a hand against the outside of the arm closest to you, to keep it from following). Now, the guy changes to octopus arms, but you're positioned outside his elbow, so he has few options for grabbing. You could also replace that push-block with a strike to the arm, if you have a strike that would be effective at that angle.


When your right arm contacts the outside of my right arm, that's the time my rhino guard will change into reverse arm hold. This will move me from your right side door into your front door.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your right arm contacts the outside of my right arm, that's the time my rhino guard will change into reverse arm hold. This will move me from your right side door into your front door.


That assumes I"m standing waiting for that. Remember that the point was to get to the outside and strike. The hand on the arm is just so you can't turn the rhino guard to put it in my way. And your hands are both together in front of you (now beside me). My hands are closer to their targets, for either striking or grappling, because you have to come over your own arm (the one my hand is on can't move to the outside to grab. Reaching over your own arm to grab is a weak movement and has short range (to evade, the hand only has to move back a few inchest. You'd be better off simply moving to change the angle.


----------



## Flying Crane

Ivan said:


> For starters, striking involves hitting someone with your fist, whereas with grappling, you're hitting someone with the planet.


Um…sometimes.  Like when you are doing a hard, slamming throw.  Lots and lots of grappling does not involve this.

let’s be clear:  regardless of what you may believe is the strongest/hardest strike that can be delivered, you don’t need it.  You don’t even need to hit harder than your enemy.  You only need to be able to hit hard enough to be effective, and that can be less hard than your enemy.  So even if one method is stronger/harder than another, it does not mean it is the only effective method. 


Ivan said:


> Lastly, almost all striking arts lack any defence against grapplers.


Really?  You’ve trained most all striking arts?  So you know this to be true?  Or did you just read it on the internet somewhere so you believe it?  Seriously, use your head a little. 


Ivan said:


> Grappling is an al-rounder: perfect regardless of whether your opponent is taller, smaller, faster, or stronger.


Nonsense.  You make these broad, sweeping generalizations that cannot be supported. 


Ivan said:


> A proffessional striker will almost always get caught by a punch from an amateur fighter, even if their skill and experience far outweighs that of the amateur's. But grappling is methodical. There is no such thing as "lucky takes" or  "lucky takedowns".


Again, nonsense.  Seriously, I don’t know where you get your ideas.  A skilled striker will “always” get hit by a lucky shot from an unskilled opponent?  In grappling there is never a lucky takedown?   Nothing you say here makes sense or can be substantiated.


----------



## Ironbear24

Bobbycat said:


> First unexpected strike is most dangerous. I always keep my right hand near my stomach, put the left elbow in the right palm, and touch the chin by my left fingers. This pose is like I think about something, but factually I am in the perfect defensive position.  A couple of times it helped me in my life.


Can you provide a visual example of this?


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your right arm contacts the outside of my right arm, that's the time my rhino guard will change into reverse arm hold. This will move me from your right side door into your front door.


Octopus strategy?


----------



## Bobbycat

Ironbear24 said:


> Can you provide a visual example of this?







__





						Google Image Result for https://www.meme-arsenal.com/memes/52c17bcae123dbb3bb260f5eb6ec7461.jpg
					





					images.app.goo.gl
				




Something like this 😊 All vital areas of the upper body are closed and you are ready to block and attack by any hand.


----------



## Koryuhoka

Okinawan Karate is a grappling art. Whether you believe it or not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> Octopus strategy?


The octopus strategy is to wrap your arms around anything that you can touch. You use a punch to bait your opponent's block. The moment that your opponent's arm touches on your arm, the moment your punching arm become as soft as an octopus's arm.


----------



## seasoned

Koryuhoka said:


> Okinawan Karate is a grappling art. Whether you believe it or not.


You are most correct, Okinawan GoJu is all about close in combat.


----------



## Instructor

Neither is better than the other.  If you've learned one it makes sense to study the other as well.  You don't want any blind spots in your defenses.  Of course you could always study a system that teaches striking and grappling, it doesn't have to be either/or.


----------



## Hanzou

Bobbycat said:


> Usually, a striker/boxer performs several strikes at different levels and quickly pull hands back.



Which is why grapplers target the body, not the hands or feet.


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> Which is why grapplers target the body, not the hands or feet.


??????????????


----------



## Hanzou

Unkogami said:


> ??????????????



Is there something that confuses you?


----------



## drop bear

Unkogami said:


> ??????????????


Ok. Breaking it down to one technique.





A grappler isn't aiming for your hands he is aiming for your hips. If you punch at a person's head then you open up your hips to be attacked.

If you block punches to your head then you open your hips to be attacked. 

Retracting your arms quickly is kind of factored in to this.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Hard to tangle with arms when the other guy is to the outside of your arm, which is really the only place he can be if he's slipping the rhino guard. Your arms can only bend inward or upward, and there's no reason to have contact with the arms in either of those directions.



Sort of. The classic version of the rhino suggests you can enter and gain an underhook.

So Mabye it is possible with the rhino? I don't know. I don't like the disadvantages of either version.

The main one being you Ironically give up a lot of your ability to defend takedowns.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If you block punches to your head then you open your hips to be attacked.
> 
> Retracting your arms quickly is kind of factored in to this.


You still have to guide your opponent's arms away from your entering path. So you still cannot ignore your opponent's hands position.

This is why wrestlers like to put both hands in front of their knees. If you attack their leg/legs, you have to deal with their hand first.


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> Is there something that confuses you?


Yeah, why you would say that. Hand fighting is a very important part of grappling, and several techniques do target the feet as well.


----------



## Unkogami

drop bear said:


> Ok. Breaking it down to one technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A grappler isn't aiming for your hands he is aiming for your hips. If you punch at a person's head then you open up your hips to be attacked.
> 
> If you block punches to your head then you open your hips to be attacked.
> 
> Retracting your arms quickly is kind of factored in to this.


There is A LOT more to takedowns than that. Every part of the body is involved.


----------



## Hanzou

Unkogami said:


> Yeah, why you would say that. Hand fighting is a very important part of grappling, and several techniques do target the feet as well.



When you're in a grappling match with another grappler, sure. However, you're not handfighting when you're fighting a striker who is hitting you and pulling their hands back repeatedly. 

However, even when you're hand fighting with another grappler, the GOAL isn't the hands, the GOAL is to get passed their hands and get to the body. Further, you wouldn't target a foot until you've isolated a limb, and if you've isolated a limb, the feet are merely one of several targets at that point.


----------



## Koryuhoka

seasoned said:


> You are most correct, Okinawan GoJu is all about close in combat.


Lots of grappling in Goju Ryu. Ground techniques. But let's leave them ignorant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sort of. The classic version of the rhino suggests you can enter and gain an underhook.
> 
> So Mabye it is possible with the rhino? I don't know. I don't like the disadvantages of either version.
> 
> The main one being you Ironically give up a lot of your ability to defend takedowns.


I do think in the right circumstance that can work. If you move up the middle with it, you are inside the arms. If they slip to the outside and block your pivot (easy enough against the outstretched arm), you lose that option.


----------



## seasoned

Koryuhoka said:


> Lots of grappling in Goju Ryu. Ground techniques. But let's leave them ignorant.


The mystery of this hidden, within the kata, is the unique aspect of this old traditional art. Only, to be reveled in the black belt ranks, do we understand the treasure that has been handed down......But I digress to the non-traditionalist pertaining to Okinawan GoJu Ryu


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> When you're in a grappling match with another grappler, sure. However, you're not handfighting when you're fighting a striker who is hitting you and pulling their hands back repeatedly.
> 
> ........


Depends on the circumstances and the environment.


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> .... you wouldn't target a foot until you've isolated a limb, .....


Sometimes that's _how_ you isolate a limb.


----------



## Hanzou

Unkogami said:


> Sometimes that's _how_ you isolate a limb.



If you're a big strong guy fighting a string-bean, sure.


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> If you're a big strong guy fighting a string-bean, sure.


That's got very little to do with it.


----------



## Hanzou

Unkogami said:


> That's got very little to do with it.


----------



## Unkogami

Hanzou said:


> View attachment 27222


Trust me. I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## drop bear

seasoned said:


> The mystery of this hidden, within the kata, is the unique aspect of this old traditional art. Only, to be reveled in the black belt ranks, do we understand the treasure that has been handed down......But I digress to the non-traditionalist pertaining to Okinawan GoJu Ryu



Then what is the point? 

You could just learn grappling pretty much anywhere and not have to wait for black. 

And then when you do have your black and everyone is learning the mysteries of grappling. You would have years of practical experience under your belt and basically smoke the whole room.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


>


I don't like that crazy monkey close guard. If my opponent wraps my head along with my arms, I will be in trouble.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like that crazy monkey close guard. If my opponent wraps my head along with my arms, I will be in trouble.



Not really. You are creating a frame. So it is a bit different.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Not really. You are creating a frame. So it is a bit different.


You are talking about ground game. I'm talking about stand up game.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

seasoned said:


> The mystery of this hidden, within the kata,


I don't like those hidden information. The reason that you create a form is to pass your information down to the next generation so your information will not be lost. To hide information in your form is against your goal.


----------



## Unkogami

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like that crazy monkey close guard. If my opponent wraps my head along with my arms, I will be in trouble.
> 
> View attachment 27223


The uke there would have lots of options if not being compliant.


----------



## seasoned

drop bear said:


> Then what is the point?
> 
> You could just learn grappling pretty much anywhere and not have to wait for black.
> 
> And then when you do have your black and everyone is learning the mysteries of grappling. You would have years of practical experience under your belt and basically smoke the whole room.


It appears I may have gotten a bit to deep in the understanding of an art like Okinawan GoJu that has stood the passing of time....so, I'll just leave it at this, "have a nice day"....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Unkogami said:


> The uke there would have lots of options if not being compliant.


If I move my arms closer to my head, I'll give my opponent more room. It will not be to my advantage.

I want to squeeze my opponent's space. I don't want my opponent to squeeze my space. I definitely don't want to squeeze my own space.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are talking about ground game. I'm talking about stand up game.



No framing works standing.


----------



## seasoned

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like those hidden information. The reason that you create a form is to pass your information down to the next generation so your information will not be lost. To hide information in your form is against your goal


When the kata is done correctly you are not losing information because it will always be there as your understanding of the art grows. Case in point, all blocks are strikes concept is not taught until you thoroughly have an understanding of the block itself. You have high, middle and down blocks that are taught in most Karate dojo as blocks and are within all kata up to and pass black belt...those blocks are used to teach timing and are used as blocks to that end until that upper block used the way it was taught segues into a throat strike. The middle block into a strike to the side of the head and also for various arm locks. And the down block into a groin strike...It is this way with all moves in kata with double and triple meaning. 
It's called progression in technique and is at the heart of learning an art as opposed to picking up a little karate here and there...........


----------



## jergar

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


Hi the grappler only has the advantage if the other person try’s to play their game and doesn’t know how! Back in the day I had one instructor who made it his mission to learn and neutralize the grapplers and taught it to us. His first rule : Do not stand still and don’t play their game !


----------



## Unkogami

jergar said:


> Hi the grappler only has the advantage if the other person try’s to play their game and doesn’t know how! Back in the day I had one instructor who made it his mission to learn and neutralize the grapplers and taught it to us. His first rule : Do not stand still and don’t play their game !


If you can't close the deal with the first few shots and/or control the distance like an expert, you are going to play that game whether you like it or not.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like those hidden information. The reason that you create a form is to pass your information down to the next generation so your information will not be lost. To hide information in your form is against your goal.


Think of forms as a one or two page outline or bullet points, not as a 100 page comprehensive text.  Sort of a syllabus a professor will pass out to the students at the beginning of a semester. During classes throughout the school year he teaches the details and background info using it as a framework for the course.  

_The key is the professor's personal input and in-depth knowledge_ to flesh out and explore the bullet points, discussing various interpretations with charts, experiments, anecdotes, and so on. Afterwords, the students can use the outline to remind themselves of the course's full content. This is a good analogy of kata. To put the whole "course" into the form would turn it into a 100 page text and make it a 2 hour long form.


----------



## jergar

Unkogami said:


> If you can't close the deal with the first few shots and/or control the distance like an expert, you are going to play that game whether you like it or not.


Exactly!


----------



## jergar

Unkogami said:


> If you can't close the deal with the first few shots and/or control the distance like an expert, you are going to play that game whether you like it or not.


Exactly!


----------



## drop bear

jergar said:


> Hi the grappler only has the advantage if the other person try’s to play their game and doesn’t know how! Back in the day I had one instructor who made it his mission to learn and neutralize the grapplers and taught it to us. His first rule : Do not stand still and don’t play their game !



I am going to say the opposite. The grappler has the advantage if the striker doesn't play the grapplers game. 

The last thing mechanically you want to do to defend a takedown is stand tall with your hands up throwing punches.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> I am going to say the opposite. The grappler has the advantage if the striker doesn't play the grapplers game.
> 
> The last thing mechanically you want to do to defend a takedown is stand tall with your hands up throwing punches.


By _not playing the grappler's game_ I thing Jerger is talking about the striker being highly mobile and maintaining range so it's harder to shoot in on him. I don't think he means standing upright and just boxing even at a grappling range. So I don't think you guys are really saying opposite things here.

 And, you are absolutely right about the "stand tall with your hands up throwing punches" thing not being wise. Back in the 80s and early 90s Our Wing Tsun group took that dubious approach against shoots and whenever anyone competent shot in on them it when very badly ....for the WT guys. Went beautifully for the wrestlers though.

Their first response was to the problem was to double down on their flawed teaching, and then when that wasn't enough, then to pretty well forbid training with other styles who might really present a challenge. Their techniques worked well enough against a clumsy, uncommitted tackle half-heartedly delivered from too far away ....by one of your own classmates!  

My own response was a simple sprawl. My old wrestling skills were degraded and pretty minimal by that point ...but still sure worked better than _standing up and trying to elbow the other guy in the back!!!_  ...See below (32:12-32:22)






Gotta love the sound effects though!


----------



## angelariz

Ironbear24 said:


> I see this a lot lately and most of it does come from the mixed martial arts, UFC fan base and to be honest. (Not referring to this forum) I am getting very tired of it, yeah I get the gracie's have their videos of them beating people from multiple styles. Then they use that as some form of crucible that bjj is the best thing ever and everything sucks in comparison.
> 
> When in reality what the videos prove is that, hey this family is very talented at what they do. Good for them, in fact that is a very great thing for them, but even they lose sometimes.
> 
> I will admit when I had to just wrestle with friends, meaning no striking. I did terrible, then they would say oh what happened to your kenpo? My response was ok want to spar then? They immediately said no which of course was because they don't want to get hit.
> 
> People are more prone to wanting to try wrestling arts compared to something where you strike eachother for this reason it seems. Then I got into higher belts in kenpo and they started showing us Judo, and my hate for grappling, or rather dislike for being in such close contact (hugging and rolling) with others went away.
> 
> I then realized that I like both, in fact I love them both, I have my preferences sure. I prefer to punch lock and elbow but that moment I tossed someone to the ground for the first time I thought to myself "whoa! I did that!?" Then the Sihing smacked me for standing there dumbfounded and ordered me to do the rest of the technique.
> 
> Anyway I had a little too much of my medication so thats why this is long winded. My point is I guess the grappler does not have some rock paper scissors advantage, just because he or she is a grappler. In fact they might be at a disadvantage vs a very talented striker becuase after all, you have to close that gap to grab them and be quick enough to grab a limb.
> 
> It is also risky as you can take a mean hit to the face, ribs ect when you are trying to land that grab or takedown. So because of this inherit disadvantage of reach, and after all, it can only take a few or even one good hit to the head and you are done. Why all this attitude of grappling art is better than a striking art?
> 
> It is a case of ignorance?


Grappling has a few advantages and disadvantages.  But im not goingnto bore you with my assessment.  I will only say that in today's camera filled society it is easier to explain grappling someone to the ground and holding them for the law. Where as striking someone into unconsciousness could be seen as an assault to Johnny Law.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> By _not playing the grappler's game_ I thing Jerger is talking about the striker being highly mobile and maintaining range so it's harder to shoot in on him. I don't think he means standing upright and just boxing even at a grappling range. So I don't think you guys are really saying opposite things here.
> 
> And, you are absolutely right about the "stand tall with your hands up throwing punches" thing not being wise. Back in the 80s and early 90s Our Wing Tsun group took that dubious approach against shoots and whenever anyone competent shot in on them it when very badly ....for the WT guys. Went beautifully for the wrestlers though.
> 
> Their first response was to the problem was to double down on their flawed teaching, and then when that wasn't enough, then to pretty well forbid training with other styles who might really present a challenge. Their techniques worked well enough against a clumsy, uncommitted tackle half-heartedly delivered from too far away ....by one of your own classmates!
> 
> My own response was a simple sprawl. My old wrestling skills were degraded and pretty minimal by that point ...but still sure worked better than _standing up and trying to elbow the other guy in the back!!!_  ...See below (32:12-32:22)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the sound effects though!


I was going to mention downward elbows. 

But yeah I have seen threads that ask for a kung fu way(or whatever) to stop double legs. And the answer is pretty much always cross face overhook sprawl.


----------



## drop bear

By the way judo and clinch style grappling where you basically have to fight through your opponent's punches is a different dynamic to wrestling where you go through a gap where the punches are not hitting you. 

With a huge. Sort of. Attached.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Why grappler has advantage over striker?

You may have experience to take 1000 guys down with full power. But it's difficult to have experience to knock 1000 guys down with full power.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why grappler has advantage over striker?
> 
> You may have experience to take 1000 guys down with full power. But it's difficult to have experience to knock 1000 guys down with full power.



Grapplers have an advantage over strikers because typically unarmed physical conflicts wind up in grappling/clinching regardless of skill level.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Grapplers have an advantage over strikers because typically unarmed physical conflicts wind up in grappling/clinching regardless of skill level.


Grapplers have advantage over strikers because the striker's

- arm can be wrapped.
- leg can be caught.

When that happen, the striking game end and the grappling game start.

It's easier for a wrestler to learn anti-striking. It's harder for a striker to learn anti-grappling.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Grapplers have advantage over strikers because the striker's
> 
> - arm can be wrapped.
> - leg can be caught.
> 
> When that happen, the striking game end and the grappling game start.
> 
> It's easier for a wrestler to learn anti-striking. It's harder for a striker to learn anti-grappling.



That doesn’t counter anything I said in my response.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> That doesn’t counter anything I said in my response.


It's not counter. It's agreement.

The moment that you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head, the moment that the striking game is over and the grappling game start.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not counter. It's agreement.
> 
> The moment that you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head, the moment that the striking game is over and the grappling game start.
> 
> View attachment 27341



I agree, but you’re being way too specific. Once the distance is closed and you’re in grappling range, if you have limited to no grappling ability against a highly trained grappler, you’re done. 

What makes this so definitive is that SO many physical altercations end up in the grapple/clinch. Very rarely does one knock someone out with a single hit, or can stay out of range and just rain down shots. The overwhelming majority of times the two parties clash together and they’re literally grappling for control.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Very rarely does one knock someone out with a single hit,


Agree!

When you hit a match box, that match box will fly away. When you put that match box on the ground, even a kid can step on and smashes it.

IMO, to punch your opponent when he is on the ground is much more effective then to punch him when he moves around.


----------



## jergar

geezer said:


> By _not playing the grappler's game_ I thing Jerger is talking about the striker being highly mobile and maintaining range so it's harder to shoot in on him. I don't think he means standing upright and just boxing even at a grappling range. So I don't think you guys are really saying opposite things here.
> 
> And, you are absolutely right about the "stand tall with your hands up throwing punches" thing not being wise. Back in the 80s and early 90s Our Wing Tsun group took that dubious approach against shoots and whenever anyone competent shot in on them it when very badly ....for the WT guys. Went beautifully for the wrestlers though.
> 
> Their first response was to the problem was to double down on their flawed teaching, and then when that wasn't enough, then to pretty well forbid training with other styles who might really present a challenge. Their techniques worked well enough against a clumsy, uncommitted tackle half-heartedly delivered from too far away ....by one of your own classmates!
> 
> My own response was a simple sprawl. My old wrestling skills were degraded and pretty minimal by that point ...but still sure worked better than _standing up and trying to elbow the other guy in the back!!!_  ...See below (32:12-32:22)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the sound effects though!


Thanks that is exactly what I meant, standing still with your hands up is what the grappler wants . 😊


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not counter. It's agreement.
> 
> The moment that you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head, the moment that the striking game is over and the grappling game start.
> 
> View attachment 27341


Hey John, one thing about your "Rhino Guard" I never understood ...or even liked is the _interlaced fingers _part of it.

I hate interlocking my fingers like that. I find it an awkward position, hard to hit with, and easy to hurt your fingers, and it makes it slower to separate your hands. 

On the other hand, if you just _grasp your palms_ together naturally ...like when you clap your hands, I find it works a whole lot better for me. 

So, being a Wing Chun guy, I could conceivably assume a modified _man-sau wu-sau_ guard and then when needed, quickly clap my hands to momentarily take on this "rhino" structure, and then close into the huen-bo or circle-leg throw exactly as your student demonstrates here. 

Normally in WC we want our hands to stay _separate_ and move_ independently,_ but I have encountered a few other situations where the structural strength and stability provided by grasping your hands was very useful. Once, for example, when sparring with a guy who probably had the most incredibly strong grip I've ever experienced. 

He latched onto my wrists and, other than perhaps a kick to the "jewels" none of my usual techniques to release would work.  But by grasping my hands together, I had the structural stability to easily bend my arms and roll my elbow up and over his, both breaking his grip and delivering an elbow strike and fak-sau to his face. Worked about every time and it's a regular part of my curriculum now.   

BTW my total thanks to Eddie (the strong guy) for helping me with this by providing some really stubborn resistance to work against!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> I hate interlocking my fingers like that.


In MA, there is no absolute right and wrong but trade off. This is why the beginner level rhino guard will evolve into intermediate level Chinese zombie arms that locking fists is not needed.

More structure + less mobility -> less structure + more mobility

The original rhino guard idea came from the handcuff situation that your arms movement is limited.


----------

