Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?

[Hanzou]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Josh41]

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.

A poor striker who is a very good grappler most times will beat a very good striker who is a poor grappler. Literally thousands of fights and the experience of countless martial artist tell us this. Landing a ko strike is more difficult than scoring a takedown against someone who isn't a good grappler. No grappler is going to come in with their chin in the air but low with their chin tucked because they are aware of the danger of being kod but a striker who wants to stay standing will likely not be able to throw many kicks because he doesnt want to be on one leg or give his opponent a chance to catch it so there is half of his weapons gone simply because of his opponents style. It's much easier to defend against strikes and try for a takedown than to land strikes while defending takedowns either way the striker must know some grappling if he is going to defend against it. The chances he will just one shot ko his opponent and not have to clinch or sprawl even once are slim whereas most fights end up on the ground at some point even between strikers they often clinch when they get tired or need to recover or attempting a strike can put them on the ground I've seen countless guys throw head kicks and fall down. It seems like it would be common sense that a good wrestler will be able to cover up and defend the strikes while shooting much better than a striker will be able to effectively strike and defend takedowns but you're acting like the striker will just one shot or one combo knock the wrestler out which isn't likely at all and means that he will have to defend some kind of takedown attempt which if he can't puts him in a world of trouble and will likely be the end of the fight because getting up after being taken down is much harder than defending the initial takedown a striker on his back is done without grappling experience or the takedown itself will end the fight as big slams often do and this hasn't even factored in submissions which along with the ko potential of slams and throws gives the grappler a much better arsenal to hurt his opponent whether standing or grounded than a pure striker has. There are no pure striking based MMA champions the ones best known for their striking are often very skilled in wrestling or some submissions based style that's why they are such good strikers is because they don't care if they get taken down and have the skills to likely defeat the takedown. MacGregor mostly fought strikers I don't know if this was intentional on the part of UFC but nearly everyone he beat liked to stand and fight except Khabib and I'm not taking anything away from Conor but had he faced off with any very good grapplers he likely wouldn't have had the run he did actually Diaz showed what happens when a striker like Conor doesn't get the job done and how quickly he is defeated on the ground and Diaz likely won the second fight as well it was razor close. Jon Jones can strike because he's a great grappler, GSP probably had the best MMA wrestling in the sport and this allowed him to become a very good striker, Silva was highly skilled on the ground beating a high level jiu jitsu black belt by submission Travis Lutter and later Chael Sonnen, all your great strikers are competent grapplers and most of your great grapplers end up being powerful strikers because of their base. On the street striking with grappling skills is the only successful formula because in a two on one or any situation where you can't control who might jump in it's a death sentence to go to the ground but there may not be room be move and dance like a bathroom at a nightclub or someone's living room which means the striking will be done up close or in the clinch but still striking is the king of the streets but only if its combined with the ability to stay standing and fight from the clinch but grappling is the most important base for any mma fighter because they dont have to be great strikers but strikers have to be good grapplers or they wont be able to stay standing. I didn't realize this post was eight years old until I had written a reply.

 

[windwalker099]

It is a case of ignorance?

In grappling one can always tap out,
In boxing one can get knocked out.

A little different.

Read the first and last postings.
This may have been already posted somewhere in between
a historic match long ago..

Muhammad Ali vs Antonio Inoki

 

[Dirty Dog]

In grappling one can always tap out,
In boxing one can get knocked out.

A little different.

In grappling, one can get choked out.
In boxing, one can always tap out.

Not really all that different.

 

[drop bear]

Positional dominance basically.

If you grapple you can gain much greater advantages over someone than if you strike.

So if we are both standing in front of each other. We have an equal chance of winning a boxing match.

If I am sitting on top of you. You have almost no chance of winning a boxing match.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's much easier to sweep your opponent down than to knock him down.



Even if you may not sweep your opponent down, you have interrupted his punch.

 

[Sammy Naur]

There is plenty of grappling in boxing, it's fundamental to the sport, granted the gloves making small joint manipulation and grabbing impossible but all sorts of wrestling style maneuvers are allowed, I would even argue it's a big part of the endurance game. Nothing wears out your opponent /partner like laying your body weight on them.

 

[Tigerwarrior]

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?

It all originated from the gracies and the ufc. They used to and some still do say "95% of all fights end up on the ground" but I have a better one "99% of all fights start standing" I used to be a bjj guy who drank the Kool aid. But now I see the whole picture. The early ufc was rigged. They picked all the people they knew they could beat. I have no doubts that if someone like superfoot or Chuck Norris was in there they would of not had a good time. Maybe someone a bit younger than those both but you get the idea. Instead they picked guys who were regional in the rankings of their respected arts and some weren't even ranked at all. It was all a big scheme to promote gjj. And it worked.

I have a friend who can't fight at all doesn't even know how to throw a punch without hurting his hand and wrist. Also doesn't know how to grapple. If you asked me if I could beat him I'd say duh! That's basically what they did they picked guys who they knew would not be too challenging to take down and submit.

Ufc was set up at the beginning to give an advantage to grapplers and lessen the advantage of strikers. It was pretty much a commercial for gjj and a gracie was always supposed to win. Which worked for a while.

Just because we all know a grappler can beat a striker if they take down the striker and the striker doesn't know how to defend. There are also techniques a striker can use to beat a grappler shooting for a takedown or trying to throw them.


Honestly anyone can beat anyone. A d1 wrestler can best almost all people in a fight. A pro boxer or kickboxer or mma fighter could do the same. I'm not training to beat those types though, but I do want a set of tools to be able to use against someone better than me at a certain range of fighting.

I think it's not about the art so much as how you train it. There are guys who dedicate their whole lives to their art and they are traditional martial artist. Are we saying they can't defend themselves from an mma trainee ? I don't buy that.

 

[Fungus]

While I currently do kyokushin, I feel that when I get tired and in close range, my instinct tells me to go low and close and grab/disable arms and take opponent down. So often in close range I see opportunities and feel what I would LIKE to do, but it's not allowed in karate. I did some greco-roman wrestling for as a kid, and still have some feeling for this. In fact I feel VERY vulnerable standing very upright in close range, it would be a piece of cake for a thrower to get me out of balance. So I prefer a lower stance, only problem is that it makes it easier for opponent to knee or kick in head. So I think a bit of both is good.

 

[Gyakuto]

Strikers tend to be very poor at grappling-we find it boring. Anyone can punch you in the face or the gooleys.

 

[Fungus]

Strikers tend to be very poor at grappling-we find it boring. Anyone can punch you in the face or the gooleys.

I read this a few times and was confused, can you elaborate on the internal consistency of these statements together? So grappling is boring, and striking is too simple? Are you arguing towards swords?

 

[Gyakuto]

I read this a few times and was confused, can you elaborate on the internal consistency of these statements together? So grappling is boring, and striking is too simple? Are you arguing towards swords?

Yes of course; Grappling is a very difficult art in which to become competent. It requires lots of hard, frequent practise and if you’ve ever encounter such a competent grappler and you’re from a predominantly striking art, you’re likely to suffer! Strikers tend to find grappling a little dull to engaged in…something peculiar about us. Striking, the other hand, can be performed effectively by virtual lay people judging from the CCTV footage one sees on the news from nightclub/pub brawls; it might not be pretty, but it seems to do the trick!

Sword’s? Nah, they totally are useless unless you time travelled back in time!

 

[Buka]

It all originated from the gracies and the ufc. They used to and some still do say "95% of all fights end up on the ground" but I have a better one "99% of all fights start standing" I used to be a bjj guy who drank the Kool aid. But now I see the whole picture. The early ufc was rigged. They picked all the people they knew they could beat. I have no doubts that if someone like superfoot or Chuck Norris was in there they would of not had a good time. Maybe someone a bit younger than those both but you get the idea. Instead they picked guys who were regional in the rankings of their respected arts and some weren't even ranked at all. It was all a big scheme to promote gjj. And it worked.

I have a friend who can't fight at all doesn't even know how to throw a punch without hurting his hand and wrist. Also doesn't know how to grapple. If you asked me if I could beat him I'd say duh! That's basically what they did they picked guys who they knew would not be too challenging to take down and submit.

Ufc was set up at the beginning to give an advantage to grapplers and lessen the advantage of strikers. It was pretty much a commercial for gjj and a gracie was always supposed to win. Which worked for a while.

Just because we all know a grappler can beat a striker if they take down the striker and the striker doesn't know how to defend. There are also techniques a striker can use to beat a grappler shooting for a takedown or trying to throw them.


Honestly anyone can beat anyone. A d1 wrestler can best almost all people in a fight. A pro boxer or kickboxer or mma fighter could do the same. I'm not training to beat those types though, but I do want a set of tools to be able to use against someone better than me at a certain range of fighting.

I think it's not about the art so much as how you train it. There are guys who dedicate their whole lives to their art and they are traditional martial artist. Are we saying they can't defend themselves from an mma trainee ? I don't buy that.

They couldn’t get anyone to fight in UFC 1. They asked everyone. They asked Wallace, Benny Urquidez etc.
Wallace agreed to be one of the announcers, which he was terrible at, as were the other two, Kathy Long and the NFL legend, Jim Brown.

Seriously, Art Davies (who started the UFC) couldn’t get people to agree to fight in an almost no holds barred fighting event being held in what looked like a cage.

Davies had just started training at Rorians. He asked Rorian if he’d ask his brother, Rickson, to fight. Rorian gave him Royce instead.

Nobody wanted to fight in this crazy idea of a mixed Martial Arts tournament.

Can’t say I blamed them, it looked nuts at the time.

 

[Fungus]

Yes of course; Grappling is a very difficult art in which to become competent. It requires lots of hard, frequent practise and if you’ve ever encounter such a competent grappler and you’re from a predominantly striking art, you’re likely to suffer! Strikers tend to find grappling a little dull to engaged in…something peculiar about us. Striking, the other hand, can be performed effectively by virtual lay people judging from the CCTV footage one sees on the news from nightclub/pub brawls; it might not be pretty, but it seems to do the trick!

Hmm not sure if I share that view. Not to say grappling is easy, but I'd say at least if you consider some rudimentary wrestling and takedowns, its quite natural. When you see kids fight, I'd say a mix of "wrestling" and haymakers is what you often see, may not elegant throws or locks but the "grappling or wrestling correspondence" to the amateur random haymaker.

I recall as as kid, when I was provoced ny a bully who was officially a karate practictioner, but he was not as strong as me... and i didnt want to fight. But as he kicked and jumped at me, I grabbed hime off the ground and threw him into some nearby thornbush. It didn't knock him him out but trashed his jacket and scared him off. I didn't eve attempt punch, had it escalated I had probably had to throw hime into the ground on his head, as it was the simplest method.