Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?

[Steve]

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]

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]

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

It depends how you defend against it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.