punching vs grappling.

[drop bear]

This isnt quite true

Hooks and uppercuts are almost built for pre-clinch when the opponent is close, and during or post clinch if you've made a gapp. Thats the reason their an infighters dream. Because i can throw them point blank, whereas my opponent cant throw his jabs, straights, or crosses effectively.

A trained striker, especially boxers who are used to a clinch, are going to be used to someone trying to come inside to close distance, and can easily have the timing to dot them a few time long before they get in.

Again, knowing how to clinch means very little if you arent quick enough to do so without getting koe'd

So you solution to a grappler would be clinch up and try for upper cut ko,s?

And not to move create space and strike at range?

 

[Drose427]

So you solution to a grappler would be clinch up and try for upper cut ko,s?

And not to move create space and strike at range?

I wasmt talking about solutions or strategies whatsoever.

I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.

 

[drop bear]

Ayup. Debates like this are, as I've said, idiotic.

There are no idiotic debates only idiotic posters.

The reason we would have this debate is because people do counter striking with grappling, grappling with striking and combinations of both.

And to properly get the most advantage out of your system you need to know where it is strongest and where you are being lead intro a trap.

So then you may avoid ideas like being locked in a clinch on the grounds that it is still safe because you can throw ko uppercuts or Thai grapple.

This way you don't have to have such a massive skill advantage.

 

[drop bear]

I wasmt talking about solutions or strategies whatsoever.

I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.

Significantly less effective than take downs though.

It is a pretty desperate defence.

 

[Drose427]

Significantly less effective than take downs though.

It is a pretty desperate defence.

you can say that

But theres an entire style of boxing for close range striking, marciano fought out of a lot of clinches doing that/

in UFC people have stopped takedowns just from striking. Hackey did it regularly, gordeau shut down tulis clinching at a major size/strength disadvantage.

This debate youve started is decided on a myriad of other variables. Striking vs grappling is a very minor one

it just isnt that cut and dry

 

[drop bear]

you can say that

But theres an entire style of boxing for close range striking, marciano fought out of a lot of clinches doing that/

in UFC people have stopped takedowns just from striking. Hackey did it regularly, gordeau shut down tulis clinching at a major size/strength disadvantage.

This debate youve started is decided on a myriad of other variables. Striking vs grappling is a very minor one

it just isnt that cut and dry

Ok. Did they shut down take downs using Thai grapples,elbows,knees,ko uppercuts and boxing clinches?

Did they shut down these attempts by actively engaging in clinches.

Is all of this actively playing into the hands of a grappler?

And yes it is a variable debate. This is just one aspect of a whole bunch of stuff.

 

[RTKDCMB]

In general, I would say grappling has the edge, simply because it has so many options available to it, whereas punching is a bit limited.

Punching, by itself is limited, you have; vertical punch, reverse punch, jab, uppercut, upset punch, turning punch, hook punch, downward punch, U-shaped punch, jumping punch, twin fist punch, twin upset punch, horizontal punches, over the shoulder punch, and those are just the punches. There are a great many options for strikes available including various types of knife hand, backfist, reverse knifehand, hammerfist, elbow, headbutt and tets not forget the kicks.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are no idiotic debates only idiotic posters.

The reason we would have this debate is because people do counter striking with grappling, grappling with striking and combinations of both.

And to properly get the most advantage out of your system you need to know where it is strongest and where you are being lead intro a trap.

So then you may avoid ideas like being locked in a clinch on the grounds that it is still safe because you can throw ko uppercuts or Thai grapple.

This way you don't have to have such a massive skill advantage.

Yes there are idiotic posters, on that we agree. This debate is done over and over and over, by the same people. It is idiotic.

 

[Drose427]

Ok. Did they shut down take downs using Thai grapples,elbows,knees,ko uppercuts and boxing clinches?

Did they shut down these attempts by actively engaging in clinches.

Is all of this actively playing into the hands of a grappler?

And yes it is a variable debate. This is just one aspect of a whole bunch of stuff.

In MMA? Yes they did

Boxers have used them to fight from or out of the clinch

A striker probably isnt going to actively clinch

Yes and no, again whose hands it plays into depends on the attributes of the two people. Early UFCS are best to see this

Im glad we agree, but I also wanna clarify (because its starting to look that way) Im not choosing a side or trying to say Striking is preferable, simply that when you go pure striking vs grappling. Its decided by a million things other than striking vs grappling

 

[Steve]

Ok, I had a student who was physically strong, could grapple and strike, could take down some of the big blokes in the gym, could submit them and their strikes were scarily good. However every month or so got beaten up badly by her husband, she's Fijian and that is what she is used to, makes no attempt to defend herself much to our frustration because when it comes down to it, it isn't the style nor the type of fighting, it's the will to fight, the determination and confidence, it is the fighter who matters not the style. You train and are confident you can defend yourself and have the will to do it, congratulations but don't pull other styles and their students down to try to prove yours is the best. As others have said, its a pointless argument.

Off topic but I hope she got help and her husband is being held accountable for beating her up. That's terrible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.

The purpose of "clinch" is to take your opponent's striking ability away. A successful clinch will give you very little room to punch.

The "head lock", "double under hook", "double over hooks", and "double arm wrap" are all good examples.

 

[drop bear]

Yes there are idiotic posters, on that we agree. This debate is done over and over and over, by the same people. It is idiotic.

Good. It is a debate That needs to be done over and over.

Idiotic would be ignoring this dynamic because thry have no interest. And then posting 3 times in a thread about a subject they are ignoring about how hard they are ignoring it.

 

[drop bear]

In MMA? Yes they did

Boxers have used them to fight from or out of the clinch

A striker probably isnt going to actively clinch

Yes and no, again whose hands it plays into depends on the attributes of the two people. Early UFCS are best to see this

Im glad we agree, but I also wanna clarify (because its starting to look that way) Im not choosing a side or trying to say Striking is preferable, simply that when you go pure striking vs grappling. Its decided by a million things other than striking vs grappling

I am not choosing a side either. I am trying to create a technical discussion on a dynamic.

 

[Drose427]

I am not choosing a side either. I am trying to create a technical discussion on a dynamic.

I didnt mean to imply you were!

If I came off that way im sorry, Just realized I was starting to come off as "strioking is better" when my point was just there are too many other variables

 

[drop bear]

I didnt mean to imply you were!

If I came off that way im sorry, Just realized I was starting to come off as "strioking is better" when my point was just there are too many other variables

Yeah sort of. We can have a striking grappling debate that focuses on the advantages disadvantages and remove some of the variables that are not going to help.

So a k1 kickboxer could probably beat a bjj white belt at any given range. And the answer there is be awesome at what you do.

A massively strong hugely tenacious guy could win on that factor alone.

Yes a puncher always has a chance of a flash ko.

But for the rest of us we have to work with what we have.

And so with things like the clinch. The wrestler is gaining position. The puncher is not so much. He might get an upper cut. But it is about the same as getting a ko from distance.

So as a striker I would mostly treat the clinch as poison. Unless I am laying waste to the guy. But if it becomes a 50 50 the grappler has the advantage.

 

[drop bear]

And being comfortable in a clinch can be like being comfortable in the guard against a striker.

It is one of those positions that gets turned around on you very quickly.

 

[Buka]

Yeah sort of. We can have a striking grappling debate that focuses on the advantages disadvantages and remove some of the variables that are not going to help.

So a k1 kickboxer could probably beat a bjj white belt at any given range. And the answer there is be awesome at what you do.

A massively strong hugely tenacious guy could win on that factor alone.

Yes a puncher always has a chance of a flash ko.

But for the rest of us we have to work with what we have.

And so with things like the clinch. The wrestler is gaining position. The puncher is not so much. He might get an upper cut. But it is about the same as getting a ko from distance.

So as a striker I would mostly treat the clinch as poison. Unless I am laying waste to the guy. But if it becomes a 50 50 the grappler has the advantage.

"But for the rest of us we have to work with what we have."

Ain't that the truth, brother.

 

[kuniggety]

The "head lock", "double under hook", "double over hooks", and "double arm wrap" are all good examples.

All are good but a "head lock", IMO, is a bad move. Even if I have the potential to grab someone in a head lock, I don't, because there is way too much potential for a grappler to use it against you.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

All are good but a "head lock", IMO, is a bad move. Even if I have the potential to grab someone in a head lock, I don't, because there is way too much potential for a grappler to use it against you.

True!

There are at least 20 different ways to counter a "head lock". But since the human neck are weak compare to the rest part of the body. Also if you can control your opponent's head, the rest of his body will follow, the "head lock" do have great advantage. When you apply a "head lock" on your opponent, if you have wrapped his leading arm, you will only have to deal with his back arm. If you can use your "head lock" to "crash" your opponent's structure, his free back arm won't be able to do much to you.

The "arm wrap + under hook (or over hook)" will not give your opponent any free arm. But since you are dealing with arm vs. arm, you don't have any advantage (since your opponent's arms can be as strong as yours).

Of course you will need to develop your "strong head lock" before you use it.

Also when you apply "head lock" on your opponent, if you can "spring" one of his leg back, you can take away most of his counters.

 

[Zero]

And kind of my take on it.

Look doing both it is kind of a difficult to explain mechanism. From my experience all things being equal grappling at the same level of experience tends to win out over striking.

But why iis conjecture a bit.

What I think is two aspects.

Grapplers tend to know what striking is about what the striker is trying to do and how to snuff it. Grappling works a bit better to neutralise striking. And striking does not in itself neutralise grappling as much.

Grappling also advances position all the time giving a greater advantage to the grappler as time goes on.

And I will try to break these down in other posts.

Hi Dropbear, I wasn't quite sure on the context? Even having gone through all the posts, are you talking about sport, ie competition, mma tournaments such as UFC or no rules street fighting or are you talking about self defence, or is it all of the above?

I think it is competition mma you are talking about, given you are saying "grappler" vs "striker" but wasn't sure...