a queation

[chris_มวยไทย]

i didnt know weather to put this in the MMA section or the self defence section so i thought stuff it i would put it here


i was just thinking , everyone says "its not the art its the fighter" , if that is so then why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?

is it that the quote i said is just to stop arguments or is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!

your thoughts?

chris

p.s. please dont argue or turn this into a "my style is better than yours" thread , most people on MT are freindly and considerate , dont ruin it!!!

 

[tradrockrat]

i didnt know weather to put this in the MMA section or the self defence section so i thought stuff it i would put it here


i was just thinking , everyone says "its not the art its the fighter" , if that is so then why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?

is it that the quote i said is just to stop arguments or is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!

your thoughts?

chris

p.s. please dont argue or turn this into a "my style is better than yours" thread , most people on MT are freindly and considerate , dont ruin it!!!

dead horse...

me beating it...



Assumption 1. Given two people with identical skill sets, the one in better shape and more commited will win.

Assumption 2. Given two people with different skill sets but equally skilled at them, the one in better shape and more commited has a very good chance of winning as long as there are no rules negating their skill set.

Assumption 3. Rules bias a sport in favor of those who train to utilize the most effective skill sets within those rules.

So now I need to ask you some questions - where did you see these fights? Were there rules? Was it a sport? Answer these questions and we can continue the conversation.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

hey, so far no fur flying. good.

by 'fights' i going to assume you mean 'combat sport events'. if that's an incorrect assumption, let me know.

there are two reasons i see for this:

1) grappling is harder than stand-up fighting. by this i mean it's more physically demanding. burns more calories. sucks more wind. take a wrestler and a boxer, or a karate-do guy and a bjj guy and have them both train 100 hours in their chosen art. the grappler will be slightly stronger and have much better wind.

in this case, it's neither the art nor the fighter -- it's the training.

2) the rules of combat sport events favor grapplers. most stand-up arts have a plan for if you get grabbed hold of. trouble is, that plan involves things that are illegal in most combat sports: minor joint manipulations, eye gouges, biting. grapplers, on the other hand, have a clear and legal solution to getting pummeled: take the guy to the ground.

in this case, your question is akin to asking 'how come short guys get beat by tall guys at basketball?' the rules make it easier for tall guys to win. to continue the metaphor, if you were allowed to punch folks in the sack in basketball, short guys would have a more even playing field.

my 2 cents. and man i hope we can keep this a rational and interesting discussion. there are dozens of threads on this here, none of which have failed to degenerate into a 'my kung fu is better than yours' debate.

 

[chris_มวยไทย]

hey, so far no fur flying. good.

by 'fights' i going to assume you mean 'combat sport events'. if that's an incorrect assumption, let me know.

there are two reasons i see for this:

1) grappling is harder than stand-up fighting. by this i mean it's more physically demanding. burns more calories. sucks more wind. take a wrestler and a boxer, or a karate-do guy and a bjj guy and have them both train 100 hours in their chosen art. the grappler will be slightly stronger and have much better wind.

in this case, it's neither the art nor the fighter -- it's the training.

2) the rules of combat sport events favor grapplers. most stand-up arts have a plan for if you get grabbed hold of. trouble is, that plan involves things that are illegal in most combat sports: minor joint manipulations, eye gouges, biting. grapplers, on the other hand, have a clear and legal solution to getting pummeled: take the guy to the ground.

in this case, your question is akin to asking 'how come short guys get beat by tall guys at basketball?' the rules make it easier for tall guys to win. to continue the metaphor, if you were allowed to punch folks in the sack in basketball, short guys would have a more even playing field.

my 2 cents. and man i hope we can keep this a rational and interesting discussion. there are dozens of threads on this here, none of which have failed to degenerate into a 'my kung fu is better than yours' debate.

aaahh good answer

 

[The Kidd]

If your talking MMA then there have been plenty of Stand Up guys have beat ground guys if it is street then go with what has been said already.

 

[chris_มวยไทย]

hey, so far no fur flying. good.

by 'fights' i going to assume you mean 'combat sport events'. if that's an incorrect assumption, let me know.

there are two reasons i see for this:

1) grappling is harder than stand-up fighting. by this i mean it's more physically demanding. burns more calories. sucks more wind. take a wrestler and a boxer, or a karate-do guy and a bjj guy and have them both train 100 hours in their chosen art. the grappler will be slightly stronger and have much better wind.

in this case, it's neither the art nor the fighter -- it's the training.

2) the rules of combat sport events favor grapplers. most stand-up arts have a plan for if you get grabbed hold of. trouble is, that plan involves things that are illegal in most combat sports: minor joint manipulations, eye gouges, biting. grapplers, on the other hand, have a clear and legal solution to getting pummeled: take the guy to the ground.

in this case, your question is akin to asking 'how come short guys get beat by tall guys at basketball?' the rules make it easier for tall guys to win. to continue the metaphor, if you were allowed to punch folks in the sack in basketball, short guys would have a more even playing field.

my 2 cents. and man i hope we can keep this a rational and interesting discussion. there are dozens of threads on this here, none of which have failed to degenerate into a 'my kung fu is better than yours' debate.

erm ,the fights were mainly ufc , and some other random MMA fights i found on youtube

 

[James Kovacich]

hey, so far no fur flying. good.

by 'fights' i going to assume you mean 'combat sport events'. if that's an incorrect assumption, let me know.

there are two reasons i see for this:

1) grappling is harder than stand-up fighting. by this i mean it's more physically demanding. burns more calories. sucks more wind. take a wrestler and a boxer, or a karate-do guy and a bjj guy and have them both train 100 hours in their chosen art. the grappler will be slightly stronger and have much better wind.

in this case, it's neither the art nor the fighter -- it's the training.

2) the rules of combat sport events favor grapplers. most stand-up arts have a plan for if you get grabbed hold of. trouble is, that plan involves things that are illegal in most combat sports: minor joint manipulations, eye gouges, biting. grapplers, on the other hand, have a clear and legal solution to getting pummeled: take the guy to the ground.

in this case, your question is akin to asking 'how come short guys get beat by tall guys at basketball?' the rules make it easier for tall guys to win. to continue the metaphor, if you were allowed to punch folks in the sack in basketball, short guys would have a more even playing field.

my 2 cents. and man i hope we can keep this a rational and interesting discussion. there are dozens of threads on this here, none of which have failed to degenerate into a 'my kung fu is better than yours' debate.

1) Sounds like a weakness that needs to be fixed.

2) Combat sporting events no longer favor grapplers. Pure grapplers don't do very well in the current events.

Its not the arts, its the fighters and "what they know and can apply." I think it's a cop out when certain styles say we don't train grappling because "it's already in our system or we can't use our deadly techniques."

The real answer is todays fighters are well versed in all ranges of combat. If an opponent is well versed in standing up then his opponent will usually opt to try and take him to the ground or vice versa.

For a standup fighter to beat a grappler. He needs to learn to grapple. The hidden techniques (with supposed hundreds of variations) within the systems are "far from complete solutions." Nobody has to convert to grappling. Just learn it "enough," THEN translate it our arts. It must be understood, not memorized or it will be useless.

And the same goes for todays grapplers. The pure grapplers are not winning in high percentages because they are to "true" to their art. Rather than evolve, they'd rather "fall behind."

 

[bushidomartialarts]

1) Sounds like a weakness that needs to be fixed.

agreed. hear! hear!

2) Combat sporting events no longer favor grapplers. Pure grapplers don't do very well in the current events.

True. Probably more accurate to say that the rules favor grappling. Most of the successful fighters have foot and ground skills, but matches still spend a lot of time on the ground.

Its not the arts, its the fighters and "what they know and can apply."

I'd also say it's the teacher and the training methods.

 

[James Kovacich]

agreed. hear! hear!



True. Probably more accurate to say that the rules favor grappling. Most of the successful fighters have foot and ground skills, but matches still spend a lot of time on the ground.



I'd also say it's the teacher and the training methods.

We're in aggreement except the rules have evolved to. They do spend a lot of time on the ground but the rules don't faovor them there except kicking them in the head while on the ground. Now they are stood back up quite a bit and that favors the striker.

What matters is that we who are not pros acknowledge our weaknesses and fix them.

 

[zDom]

i didnt know weather to put this in the MMA section or the self defence section so i thought stuff it i would put it here


i was just thinking , everyone says "its not the art its the fighter" , if that is so then why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?

is it that the quote i said is just to stop arguments or is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!

your thoughts?

chris

p.s. please dont argue or turn this into a "my style is better than yours" thread , most people on MT are freindly and considerate , dont ruin it!!!

My first thought is "90 percent of statistics are made up." (Somebody has something like that in their signature).

But seriously, 80 percent? What about,

• Matt Hughes (grappler) vs Georges St. Pierre (striker)?
• Tito Ortiz vs Chuck Liddell?
• Jeff Monson vs Tim Sylvia?

etc., etc., etc.

The Gracies and early UFCs caught a lot of stand-up stylists napping, but the wake-up bell has been rung and people are waking up.

Grappling is no longer dominating as it appeared to be for a short while.

(A period of 5 to 10 years, is, after all, a relatively short period of time when you are talking about trends).

I mean, they were calling Hughes the "greatest middleweight of ALL TIME" there for awhile until GSP picked him apart with a solid stand-up game, eh?

And Tito is no slouch, either, in the whole ground game, is he?

Rather than just shoot out a figure like "80 percent," I would recommend going though the archives fight by fight and actually see what the stats are for just UFC alone.

I would surely be interested in seeing the results — especially a year-by-year comparison.

It seems to ME in the last half dozen UFCs, for example, I am seeing as many stand-up/striking victories as ground-game wins.

And, I might add, a LOT of the wins by grapplers are against other grapplers!

 

[Cruentus]

i didnt know weather to put this in the MMA section or the self defence section so i thought stuff it i would put it here


i was just thinking , everyone says "its not the art its the fighter" , if that is so then why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?

is it that the quote i said is just to stop arguments or is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!

your thoughts?

chris

p.s. please dont argue or turn this into a "my style is better than yours" thread , most people on MT are freindly and considerate , dont ruin it!!!

I don't think that is true. Certain fighters who tend to win most of their matches, do so through strikes, even against some of the most talented grapplers in the business. Take Chuck Liddell, for example.

Plus, I don't consider "Grappling" a "style" anymore then I would consider "striking" a style. I think that human when human being fight, they heft tools, they strike, and they grab and wrestle. So in order to know how to fight, I think you have to be able to do all of it.

In MMA, the rules and environment makes it less dangerous and very advanteguos to grapple over other methods. So, you won't survive an MMA match without some grappling, even if you are a talented striker.

So ultimately, I think it does come down to the fighter. The smart fighter is going to understand the match and the environment in which he will be fighting, and will train accordingly...

 

[kodo]

You know, the 80% thing is really a relative issue. It depends on the context of the conversation. If you have the best fighting system in the world and you are full of sloth and compacency, you'll lose in combat to a person with a poor fighting system and great spirit of martial arts.

 

[Hand Sword]

i didnt know weather to put this in the MMA section or the self defence section so i thought stuff it i would put it here


i was just thinking , everyone says "its not the art its the fighter" , if that is so then why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?

is it that the quote i said is just to stop arguments or is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!

your thoughts?

chris

p.s. please dont argue or turn this into a "my style is better than yours" thread , most people on MT are freindly and considerate , dont ruin it!!!

I would say, what fights have you been watching? If it's the MMA stuff, who's who? Everyone cross trains themselves to have a stand up game, and a grappling game. I don't believe there are many who just specialize in one area or the other. Those that have, have been defeated by those that cross train, almost all of the time.

 

[CuongNhuka]

THEN[/U] translate it our arts. It must be understood, not memorized or it will be useless.

This is partly true. My philosophy is this: the reason grapplers TEND to win more then stand up guys has to do with the ranges of combat. The basic 6 are: out of range (say, run away?), weapon range (stick, knive, what have you), kicking range (Tae Kwon Do guys like being here), punching range (Boxers, Wing Chun guys, and me like being here), clinch (Muay Thai), and grapple. Some folks put as just strikeing and grappling but there is a method to my madness.
If you focus on one range or position over all others you need to be able to get there. Which means that if you focus on punching you must be able to get there. So, you also have to be comfortable in the kicking range so you can get through it. If you don't, your S.O.L. To be a good grappler you must be a ble to get the grappling range. That is why it seems like grapplers win more often then not. Most be people well practice getting in range, but not avoiding being forced out. So, because of the way they train, grapplers have an edge.
For a striker to take back the edge he/she must become comfortable on his/her back. Namely being flung on your back and punching straight up into the guys face. Notice that when strikers get taken to the ground they try to grapple, or they barely hit. Why? They forgot what there strenght is, and are trying to either beat a grappler at his own game (which is a bad idea), or there trying to stand back up thinking that the only place they can hit is opn there feet.
If applied correctly, you can do any movement at any range. But this is what is commonly called "being a master".

 

[tradrockrat]

If applied correctly, you can do any movement at any range. But this is what is commonly called "being a master".

ohhhh... I'm gonna take issue with this one. I'm quite sure I'm not a master, so maybe that's the problem, but I've spent a few minutes in the ring and on the mats. I seriously doubt I'll ever be able to throw a shovel kick from the floor that would do any good. Standing up, my shovel kick can and has sent opponents to the floor holding their thigh. I'm not taking issue with the intent of your post - I'm all for fighting to your strengths, I just have issues with words like "any" and "always" when dealing with non-choreographed movements. You can't change physics. If my shoulders are on the ground, I won't be throwing a right cross. Instead, I might try a hook or an elbow, but much power is robbed from being unable to utilize the whole body - that's physical kinisthetics (I think that's the proper term).

 

[Brandon Fisher]

Its simple. If one fighter has never learned a aspect of fighting that they need and someone uses it against them then its like a trained fighter agaisnt a untrained fighter.

 

[Rook]

If your talking MMA then there have been plenty of Stand Up guys have beat ground guys if it is street then go with what has been said already.

When was this? There were fights where people with grappling and striking beat people with only grappling and there were fights where one person with grappling and striking beat another with grappling and striking. I can't think of an instance in which a good grappler lost to a pure striker.

 

[Marginal]

When was this? There were fights where people with grappling and striking beat people with only grappling and there were fights where one person with grappling and striking beat another with grappling and striking. I can't think of an instance in which a good grappler lost to a pure striker.

Igor, Vanderlai... These are good grapplers?

 

[Rook]

I don't think that is true. Certain fighters who tend to win most of their matches, do so through strikes, even against some of the most talented grapplers in the business. Take Chuck Liddell, for example.

The thing is, Chuck is more qualified as a grappler than he is as a striker, and spends more time practicing his takedown defense and groundwork than he does his striking. He is a BJJ purple belt and an NCAA Division 1 Nationalist wrestler, and trains with world class grapplers and solid wrestlers 6 days a week. In Chuck Liddell, we arn't talking about a pure striker at all, but rather a very well qualified grappler who hits very hard.

Plus, I don't consider "Grappling" a "style" anymore then I would consider "striking" a style. I think that human when human being fight, they heft tools, they strike, and they grab and wrestle. So in order to know how to fight, I think you have to be able to do all of it.

Agreed.

In MMA, the rules and environment makes it less dangerous and very advanteguos to grapple over other methods. So, you won't survive an MMA match without some grappling, even if you are a talented striker.

The no-rules matches the Gracies and others have held suggest that it isn't the ruleset that makes grappling what it is.

 

[Rook]

My first thought is "90 percent of statistics are made up." (Somebody has something like that in their signature).

Agreed. Its hard to come up with an accurate percentage.

But seriously, 80 percent? What about,

• Matt Hughes (grappler) vs Georges St. Pierre (striker)?
• Tito Ortiz vs Chuck Liddell?
• Jeff Monson vs Tim Sylvia?

All of these people are well versed in both striking and grappling. They may use one more than the other, but all six of them know both.

etc., etc., etc.

The Gracies and early UFCs caught a lot of stand-up stylists napping, but the wake-up bell has been rung and people are waking up.

Grappling is no longer dominating as it appeared to be for a short while.

(A period of 5 to 10 years, is, after all, a relatively short period of time when you are talking about trends).

I mean, they were calling Hughes the "greatest middleweight of ALL TIME" there for awhile until GSP picked him apart with a solid stand-up game, eh?

And Tito is no slouch, either, in the whole ground game, is he?

Rather than just shoot out a figure like "80 percent," I would recommend going though the archives fight by fight and actually see what the stats are for just UFC alone.

I would surely be interested in seeing the results — especially a year-by-year comparison.

It seems to ME in the last half dozen UFCs, for example, I am seeing as many stand-up/striking victories as ground-game wins.

And, I might add, a LOT of the wins by grapplers are against other grapplers!

Agreed.