Grappling vs Striking

What is a better instrument for eating A knife or a fork

Both have their uses. It's the same thing here.

nevilleb

__________________
Each man, one way;
Each horse, one stance;
Each church, one buddha;
Each master to his own technique.

Both are and will be useful depending on the circumstances.

Getting a bit off topic though - I always find it amusing when people use the multiple opponent argument against grappling.

It's the same sort of thing as Rorion Gracie putting out those stats that said 80% of fights end up on the ground - but neglecting to say that those figures were taken from police officers subduing criminals - sure fights do end up on the ground but not that often.

of course you want to stay mobile for self defence, but sometimes you won't have the choice and then you better know what to do down there. I'll put my neck out and say that the people less likely to end up on the ground are actually grapplers (specifically wrestlers) - they train takedowns all day and naturally have the best defence against a shooting or throwing opponent.

In fact, is a good stiker likely to do any better when severly out numbered I don't think my stand up skills are that bad but there's no way I'm going to take on a group of guys and win if they're intent on doing me real harm. What if one of the group is a grappler and he takes me down and pins me while his mates kick me in the head

I always hear "the last place you want to be in a real fight is on the ground" I think the last place you want to be in a "real fight" is in the fight itself.

Very true Doug and I think that you will find that most of us agree with you on this one. Your best bet it to be comfortable fighting at both ranges and again I think most people realise this nowadays.

__________________
The best form of defence is attack!!

That's true Doug and you should be able to fight on the ground. However, I think the point of the don't go to the ground people is that many Grapplers pretty much just train to go to the ground and that is what they are immediatley going to attempt to do in a fight. The idea being that if you are set upon by a group of guys maybe you can fight through one or two of them in order to "get away" but if your whole strategy is to mount a get instead of push him away or slug him on the chin, it makes it a little harder to run away. Your thought that grapplers are actually better at not being taken down probably has a lot of truth to it, but of course, that's why you have to be comfortable doing it all isn't it!

Wow I should I have got back to this thread sooner,

jmd I do take what you said into account. Heck maybe when I go against the multiple person scenario. Every one there is a better striker then me! ( Oh boy would suck) And suppose that one person scenario came into play and the guy pulled out a knife when we were on the ground and he's a better ground fighter then me (lol that would suck to oh boy) I guess just go with the flow and take what comes at you. If the one guy is be better then me and it's on the street then hell I just wouldn't get involved with him. I actually like Nev's I Idea get one of them and use as a shield that, would probaly be the best approach.

Matt,

__________________
The only thing neccesary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke,

Hmmm, getting one guy to use as a shield - maybe using an entry into the clinch, applying an arm drag then a rear naked choke and using him as a shield. Kinda sounds like grappling to me

Of course not all grappling is applied while rolling about on the floor - but everyone knows that.

If it's one on one though and the guy doesn't have a weapon (difficult to tell I know) the ground is probably the safest place to be for a trained groundfighter - mostly because most other martial artists (or anyone else for that matter) are completely out of their element down there.

Cool thread by the way and it's nice to see more "traditional" guys being open minded. Post this sort of thing on a lot of other CMA boards and you'll get the standard "grappling won't work in a real fight," "I'll never get taken down" etc...

ttt for the Dragonslist!

The point is not striking vs. grappling, but if the striker also trains for balance, good stability in standing, and the like. For example, wrestlers actually have circle walking, just a little wider than Bagua, because they want to train their knees against sheer forces. I have seen boxers do moving step pushing hands for not getting pushed out of balance. I have seen a wrestler doing the same Kao movement to disbalance on contact from a shoot that I do, at least comparable, and I have rammed people of 115 kilos to the ground with it - without "wrestling". Martial arts is wrestling and striking, not one or the other. I do as much for my stance stability that in my sports, NOONE can resist if I push him, let him have 130 kilos. Guess why there is no chinese martial art that works without grappling. You cannot defend your position if you don't have methods of disbalancing and wrestling, but the chinese methods are by no means worse than greek or roman ones, it's just chinese method of grappling (attacking structure and balancing). What I criticize is not that people claim you have to know grappling, but how they get to the conclusion you need "western" grappling. Last time I checked, the Gracies learned some japanese version which they modified, but still they god rid of wrestlers.

__________________
"Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases)
"Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne
"Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.

If that didn't solve any striking vs grappling argument I don't know what will. Thanks for the post Nik, it was very informative. I am also glad to see that, someone else realizes that other types of fighters also train in similiar techniques.

__________________
"You're lucky buddhism teaches freedom from desire, because I have the desire to kick your ass!" -Richard Gere- from the Simpsons

Perhaps it's too difficult, but, you could try putting this "in my sports, " in front of that. I outwrestle guys having 20 or more kilos more than me, and I don't do grecoroman. It's about doing any kind of grappling, not a special or fashion one. And it's about size and strength alone not winning the day if the skill of someone outweights it.

__________________
"Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases)
"Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne
"Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.

Personally I don't see a separation.

If someone is fast it is hard to grapple, if some one is strong it's hard to grapple and trying to put any form of restraint on a person who is resisting is difficult and pretty dangerous.

On the other hand landing a powerful blow on somebody who is fast is difficult, landing a blow on a big and strong opponent may not get the result you want and if the other person is resisting you risk getting involved in a slug fest exchanging punches.

The answer Evade, connect and strike as best you can, then if the strike had some effect grab them, control them and hit them with a powerful strike that they can't evade.

So basically hit, grab, hit again and if required restrain and detain, so pretty much a fifty fifty split.

Probably.

__________________
"Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases)
"Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne
"Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.

Of course there's no one correct way of doing things and at the end of the day, fighting is fighting no matter what "style" you train - there'll be an ovelap in many arts and methods of training.

What makes you an effective fighter is HOW you train and as far as takedowns and playing for top position on the ground goes, greco and freestyle do it best.

I can tell you now that it's not the wrestlers doing circle walking or boxers doing push hands that makes them effective in their respective ranges i think any good coach will look at these exercises as mainly conditioing and as supplements to their bread and butter. It's the fact that they do 90% of their training against opponents who are fighting back at full resistance that makes them successful. Training like this is the best way to pressure test techniques and, more importantly, internalise the body positioning, reflexes, patterns, postures and attributes that will make you successful when push comes to shove.


Of course there are loads of CMA that train like this as well, but unfortunately there are always going to be those guys who think that because they spend 90% of their training time doing forms that they will be ready for any situation - simply not true.

If you are fighting 90% of your time against fully resisting partners without conditioning and strength practice, you will get probably 90% of the time badly hurt.
Grecoroman and freestyle wrestling cannot be the top at real fighting on the ground, because it emphasises a stylized, competition based wrestling, and the hurt'em plenty approach is only a comfortable byproduct. A practice like BJJ, or other perfectly "modern" or "traditional" sort of jiujitsu practice depending on how you look at it, will be a better practice of true martial fighting. Because it is. A friend of me comes from the Kosho ruy sort of practice, and he won the grecoroman section of his last US army tournament, and made 3rd at freestyle, without doing this sort of practice lots of time. If you can beat the specialists coming from a completely different art, it tells you that his sort of practice at least can't be worse.

My example of the practices of old chinese ones also found in "modern" practice by another term was just a reminder that capabilities come from practices, and many are found where most people don't expect. Only fools rely on strikes only, or think a wrestler can beat everyone just from being good at his sort of wrestling. If the other is good enough to deny his skills, it will go down to other fields. Practices make it, and determination makes it, and relying on 90% brawling in practice is not a very good one. I fail to hear of boxers saying they're good a it because 90% of their time, they're sparring, all out.

__________________
"Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases)
"Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne
"Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.

Hey, practice makes permanent.

Actually Greco makes a great base for dealing with BJJ - and a lot of the top fighters like mark coleman, randy couture, dan henderson etc are quite easily able to deal with experienced BJJ practitioners using greco clinch and positioning. Wrestlers generally have awesome bases and their conditioning is off the hook - add in strikes and they can quite easily defend the subs and control the game.

Just because you're training alive doesn't mean you're trying to hurt your partner (although there are a lot of injuries in wrestling) - the best conditioning for the art is the art itself and during wrestling practice wrestlers will probably spend most of their time wrestling (surprise)- of course the top level guys will have supplementary exercises. But this will generally be done off the mat.

Having said this, a study of striking on the ground and a look at sub defence and application is a must for wrestlers competing in MMA, but as far as takedowns, takedown defence and control on the ground wrestling is, without a doubt, simply excellent.

as far as all that sport vs self defence nonsense goes, why not read this: http://www.straightblastgym.com/page...Press&session=

I must agree with Matt Thornton in saying that this argument is used by those people trying to justify why their art doesn't do well in competition and against other styles.

Oh actually i forgot - it's too dangerous so sparring is forbidden

Catch ya later.