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.

[Rook]

Igor,

Igor V. did train alot of grappling with highly qualified samboists in Russia.


Vanderlai... These are good grapplers?

Vanderlai is a BJJ black belt and was the All Brazil Armed Forces Champion in both freestyle and greco-roman wrestling. He trains with world class grapplers six days a week.

[James Kovacich]

The thing is, Chuck is more qualified as a grappler than he is as a striker,
In Chuck Liddell, we arn't talking about a pure striker at all, but rather a very well qualified grappler who hits very hard.



.

Are you sure about that?
http://www.slokickboxing.com/instructors.htm
Chuck Liddell is the Master Instructor at SLO Kickboxing. He is currently ranked #1in the world. His martial arts career began at the age of twelve with Koei-Kan Karate today he holds 2 black belts and a national championship title. Chuck started the sport of wrestling in San Marcos High School in Santa Barbara his Sophomore year. He came to Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo where he was a 4-year starter at the Division 1 Wrestling program. Chuck was also a State Champion in Freestyle Wrestling for California. After his wrestling career, he missed the competition.

As fate would have it, he heard of a former professional kickboxer by the name of John "The Train" Hackleman, world-class kickboxer ranked #5 in the world. Chuck went to John's dojo called the "The Pit" in the hills of Arroyo Grande, CA and learned the art of kickboxing and also earned his 2nd black belt in Kajukembo. Chuck went on to become a North American Champion for the IKF, WKA, WKC and the USMTA.

[James Kovacich]

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).
I have to agree.

[Marginal]

Igor V. did train alot of grappling with highly qualified samboists in Russia.



Vanderlai is a BJJ black belt and was the All Brazil Armed Forces Champion in both freestyle and greco-roman wrestling. He trains with world class grapplers six days a week.
Neither is known for their grappling despite that.

[MJS]

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.

I may be reading his comment wrong, but I take it as referring to beating the people strictly using striking skill as the method of ending the fight. While Chuck has excellent take down defense, he's not using grappling to end the fight. I may be wrong, but I can't recall a fight in which he used a submission to end it.

[MJS]

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.

How do you figure, when the majority of his fights are being won by strikes?

Taken from Sherdog (http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=192) For someone that you're claiming is more qualified as a grappler, I see only 1 fight won by submission. The rest are strikes or kicks.

[MJS]

Vanderlai is a BJJ black belt and was the All Brazil Armed Forces Champion in both freestyle and greco-roman wrestling. He trains with world class grapplers six days a week.

Taken from Sherdog (http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=209)

He may have a BJJ background, but the majority of his wins were not by submission, they were strikes.

[MJS]

Igor V. did train alot of grappling with highly qualified samboists in Russia.

Sherdog (http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=300)

Looking at this, he seems to be a bit closer to the submission end, although more wins were done by KO.

[Tez3]

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.

I have seen it happen, rare I must admit though. The last time was in September on one of our shows, a pro fight. Phil 'Billy' Harris who's also a Judo international was beaten by David Smyth by a flying knee to the head in 37 secs round one! We knew of Billy's record though so it was David's gameplan to keep him standing and not try to go to the floor with him. David's grappling is very good but not Olympic standard! I have the DVD, I don't think it will play in the States but will send out to anyone who thinks they can play it. There's other good fights on it too.
http://www.mmauniverse.com/fighters/SS14964

[CuongNhuka]

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).

I would explain how one could (theoritcly) apply shovel kick from the ground. But, since I don't know how to do it, I cann't. If you could explain how to do it, I'll get right to it. But my point is the person who has mastered a technique/concept/system can apply anthing they know in some way. And you could throw a cross from your back. Sorta. If you have them in the guard, flex them out, and then throw a punch into there face. Sort of a cross.
That is called physical kinisthetics. And you cann't change the laws of physics. But doing kicks form the ground doesn't violete the laws of physics.

[Last Fearner]

why is it that about 80% of all stand up vs grappling fights ive seen have resulted in a win to the grappler?
Ordinarily, I would take issue with the "80%" as I often do with random "statistics." However, since the Chris' statement said "fights ive seen," then it is a fair estimate of what percentage chris has witnessed. To this, my answer is simple. It is because you have witnessed more fights where the grappler happened to beat a "stand up" fighter.

Most of the other comments in this thread have been fairly logical and accurate according to my own personal experience. The winner of any fight depends on a few factors. One is the physical attributes of the person fighting. Some of the things that give a person the "physical" advantage include: being stronger, quicker, having longer reach (for strikers), or having a shorter, more compact body structure (for throwing and grappling). A person who faces an opponent with greater physical attributes must do something else to overcome that disadvantage.

This is where I identify the second factor: Technical skills. This is what some would attribute to the "style" the individual studies, but I would suggest that is not really the case. Most people lump Martial Art schools in groups according to what their historical background is, and what area of technical skills they favor, and call this the "style." As it has been mentioned, most fighters today will train to be fairly well-rounded, and are able to handle a variety of situations.

I label the areas as three basic categories, which can be further divided into sub-categories. An unarmed attacker (in the street or in the ring) is going to do one of three things to me: 1. Strike me, 2. Throw me to the ground, or 3. grab and hold me. Any one, or combination of these three can be utilized by my attacker, as well as by me when defending.

A strike can be performed with virtually any part of the body (hand, foot, knee, elbow, head, shoulder, hip, and the list goes on), and can be done at long range, medium range, and close range. Strikes can be executed effectively while standing, sitting, or lying on the ground with minor adjustments to position, angle, and which strikes to use.

A throw can be performed by a skilled fighter which would either end the fight right there, or incapacitate the attacker to make a finishing strike, or hold a relatively easy application (including chokes, and twists to break bones).

The fact is that none of the techniques in any category have an inherent superiority over either of the other categories. A strike is only effective if it hits the target, and lands with enough force to do damage. A throw will only work if you are able to off balance your opponent, enter close enough to execute, and have the attacker land poorly so as not to be able to recover and continue to fight. Any hold achieved through the process of grappling will be effective if you can avoid being struck or thrown prior to full application. You can apply submission or injury holds while standing, sitting or lying on the ground as well.

If someone attempts to strike, then you can avoid the hit or reduce the major impact. If someone attempts to throw, then you should avoid being off balance or reduce the major impact. If someone attempts to grab and hold, you can avoid the grab, release from the grab, reverse the hold, throw them if they are standing, or strike them any way you can. If you are a good grappler, you might be superior in that category, but otherwise, striking can still prevail.

The third factor that I attribute to a successful match is the mental ability of the fighter. This includes a wide range of knowledge, skill, and individual qualities. Some of these include the following: trickery and deception, timing, quick reactions, mental focus, determination, motivation, perseverance, indomitable spirit, and how to properly apply the skills which they possess.

Consider that a person who trains with only one kicking technique, and nothing else, they would be limited in their options. However, if they became so quick, powerful, accurate, and skillful in the application of that one kick, there might not be anyone who could get past it. My High School wrestling coach used to tell a story about one of his past students who had mastered one skill - - a counter to a single-leg take-down which resulted in a pinning hold. He would stand with one leg forward, unprotected, just taunting his opponents to take it. If they did, his move never failed him. Not that he would have been unbeatable world-wide in any arena under any rules, but it worked for him then on the wrestling mat.


is it really 100% about the fighter , if it is then why do grapplers always win??!!
I think we can agree that this is not true. Not only do grapplers not "always" win, but there is not a higher percentage based on grappling vs. striking, or throwing unless there are restrictions by rules agreed upon.

I began my training in wrestling and Judo in 1965 at the age of five. Three years of Junior High wrestling, and three years of Senior High wrestling. When I was 15, I joined a Judo dojo and could beat the Black Belts in grappling - - until they applied a choke hold since I was not accustomed to these "illegal" maneuvers. I quickly learned. I knew these holds, but my years in wrestling had conditioned me not to use them, nor to defend against them. Today, I train smarter. I prefer to remain in the "out of range" position. "You want me, come and get me!" - lol.

If you can get past my legs, my hands are just as deadly. If you grab me, I can strike, kick, or throw at close range. If you take me down, and survive the fraction of a second it takes to do so, then I will grapple. I know what to do on the ground, but if you are better than me at grappling because that is your main focus, I will do enough to avoid being injured or restrained, and position myself to strike with deadly force. If I can get to my feet, all the better, but I do not rely on that option. I will strike with hands, elbows, knees, feet, etc. from a variety of trajectories.

That is my strategy! It might work, and it might not, but it depends mostly on the two (or more) individuals involved, and what skills they bring to the fight. You might be better than me in 99% of your chosen techniques promoted by your "style," but I will do my best to exploit that 1%.

CM. D.J. Eisenhart

[Tez3]

I've seen a couple of KO's from kicks from the floor. It's actually quite easy to kick up, it's something we train at. Ground and pound, throwing punches from the floor is also something we train. Throwing them up from undrneath and throwing them down from the top.
Good post Last Fearner! In a competitive situation, you find out your opponents strengths and weaknesses therefor you won't get an accurate indicatation of what wins more fights. As I said before with our lad David Smyths fight we knew his opponent was strong on the ground so it was intended that David keep the fight standing where the opponent wasn't nearly as strong. It has a lot to do with tactics how a fight goes. Self defence is a totally different situation.

[FearlessFreep]

Keep in mind that sport fighting is somewhat influenced by the rules of engagement and that what you see is often the competitors responding to the rules. This is especially true, for example, in football. The rules committee every year looks at how the rules affect the play and then make changes to the rules to balance out what the lgeal as a whole wants to see; more offensive, more defense, more passing more running. Every sport organization does the same things, tailor the rules for what they want, what they want to present to the audince. Then the copetitors respond o rule changes and change their tactics and strategies to work best within the rules.

And then it's cyclical, fighters win using a technique or philosophy and if it's successful, then everyone starts picking up on that offensively, until someone finds an effective defense for it, in which case that kind aof attack becomes less of a 'sure thing', so people move on to something else. It's an arms race of sorts as people are chasing each other to gain the upper hand and the tide drifts from technique to technique.

My limited knowledge of the history of these kinds of events is that for awhile that takedowns, submissions, etc...were very successful because it was new to a lot of fighters and a lot of them couldn't handle it (didn't know how to defend it) Now it seems take-down defense has become much better trained so there are more fights staying up. Someday it will change because the ground-fighters will start training more in moves to defeat sprawls and such (yes, they exist). Until someone invents the undefensible shoot or throw or the unpenatrable sprawl or kick, it will always be shifting back and forth. So it's impossible to take a look at a snapshot of time ('these days" or "the last five championship figts" or whatever) and draw a conclusion about the effectivness of a particular fighting style.

Personally, I prefer stand-up striking (for reasons other than competition) so I'm happy to see better takedown defense and more fights ending with hard strikes, knocks outs, TKOs, etc... but I'm not under the illusion that it's a better style of fighting, it's just what has come to more prominence more recently. the tide will shift and we will all learn something a bit better..

[exile]

Ordinarily, I would take issue with the "80%" as I often do with random "statistics." However, since the Chris' statement said "fights ive seen," then it is a fair estimate of what percentage chris has witnessed. To this, my answer is simple. It is because you have witnessed more fights where the grappler happened to beat a "stand up" fighter.

Most of the other comments in this thread have been fairly logical and accurate according to my own personal experience. The winner of any fight depends on a few factors. One is the physical attributes of the person fighting. Some of the things that give a person the "physical" advantage include: being stronger, quicker, having longer reach (for strikers), or having a shorter, more compact body structure (for throwing and grappling). A person who faces an opponent with greater physical attributes must do something else to overcome that disadvantage.

This is where I identify the second factor: Technical skills. This is what some would attribute to the "style" the individual studies, but I would suggest that is not really the case. Most people lump Martial Art schools in groups according to what their historical background is, and what area of technical skills they favor, and call this the "style." As it has been mentioned, most fighters today will train to be fairly well-rounded, and are able to handle a variety of situations.

I label the areas as three basic categories, which can be further divided into sub-categories. An unarmed attacker (in the street or in the ring) is going to do one of three things to me: 1. Strike me, 2. Throw me to the ground, or 3. grab and hold me. Any one, or combination of these three can be utilized by my attacker, as well as by me when defending.

A strike can be performed with virtually any part of the body (hand, foot, knee, elbow, head, shoulder, hip, and the list goes on), and can be done at long range, medium range, and close range. Strikes can be executed effectively while standing, sitting, or lying on the ground with minor adjustments to position, angle, and which strikes to use.

A throw can be performed by a skilled fighter which would either end the fight right there, or incapacitate the attacker to make a finishing strike, or hold a relatively easy application (including chokes, and twists to break bones).

The fact is that none of the techniques in any category have an inherent superiority over either of the other categories. A strike is only effective if it hits the target, and lands with enough force to do damage. A throw will only work if you are able to off balance your opponent, enter close enough to execute, and have the attacker land poorly so as not to be able to recover and continue to fight. Any hold achieved through the process of grappling will be effective if you can avoid being struck or thrown prior to full application. You can apply submission or injury holds while standing, sitting or lying on the ground as well.

If someone attempts to strike, then you can avoid the hit or reduce the major impact. If someone attempts to throw, then you should avoid being off balance or reduce the major impact. If someone attempts to grab and hold, you can avoid the grab, release from the grab, reverse the hold, throw them if they are standing, or strike them any way you can. If you are a good grappler, you might be superior in that category, but otherwise, striking can still prevail.

The third factor that I attribute to a successful match is the mental ability of the fighter. This includes a wide range of knowledge, skill, and individual qualities. Some of these include the following: trickery and deception, timing, quick reactions, mental focus, determination, motivation, perseverance, indomitable spirit, and how to properly apply the skills which they possess.

Consider that a person who trains with only one kicking technique, and nothing else, they would be limited in their options. However, if they became so quick, powerful, accurate, and skillful in the application of that one kick, there might not be anyone who could get past it. My High School wrestling coach used to tell a story about one of his past students who had mastered one skill - - a counter to a single-leg take-down which resulted in a pinning hold. He would stand with one leg forward, unprotected, just taunting his opponents to take it. If they did, his move never failed him. Not that he would have been unbeatable world-wide in any arena under any rules, but it worked for him then on the wrestling mat.


I think we can agree that this is not true. Not only do grapplers not "always" win, but there is not a higher percentage based on grappling vs. striking, or throwing unless there are restrictions by rules agreed upon.

I began my training in wrestling and Judo in 1965 at the age of five. Three years of Junior High wrestling, and three years of Senior High wrestling. When I was 15, I joined a Judo dojo and could beat the Black Belts in grappling - - until they applied a choke hold since I was not accustomed to these "illegal" maneuvers. I quickly learned. I knew these holds, but my years in wrestling had conditioned me not to use them, nor to defend against them. Today, I train smarter. I prefer to remain in the "out of range" position. "You want me, come and get me!" - lol.

If you can get past my legs, my hands are just as deadly. If you grab me, I can strike, kick, or throw at close range. If you take me down, and survive the fraction of a second it takes to do so, then I will grapple. I know what to do on the ground, but if you are better than me at grappling because that is your main focus, I will do enough to avoid being injured or restrained, and position myself to strike with deadly force. If I can get to my feet, all the better, but I do not rely on that option. I will strike with hands, elbows, knees, feet, etc. from a variety of trajectories.

That is my strategy! It might work, and it might not, but it depends mostly on the two (or more) individuals involved, and what skills they bring to the fight. You might be better than me in 99% of your chosen techniques promoted by your "style," but I will do my best to exploit that 1%.

CM. D.J. Eisenhart

This post deserves be a sticky in every forum, IMHO. I think Last Fearner has said the last word on this subject, in a sense, and it should put to rest all of the grappling vs. striking vs. mixed vs. whatever debates that surface with depressing regularity on all MA boards I've ever looked at. (It almost certainly won't, unfortunately, but that's not his fault...)

Note something else: close up, Master Eisenhart uses hands, elbows, locks, and a variety of other techs that TKD in some quarters isn't supposed to have, judging from the number of discussions in which the "TKD = kicking" comes up (and kicking from distance, at that). All experienced TKD practitioners—and MAists of any stripe—know better: their respective arts contain effective weapons for all fighting ranges, and use pretty much every available striking surface the body offers. The question, over and over again, is: do you train those weapons and resources that your art offers, and if so, how realistically? These simple truth get overlooked all the time, alas. Thanks again to LF for restating them lucidly and authoritatively.

[kcast]

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.


took the words out of my mouth!! Good point!

[Rook]

Are you sure about that?
http://www.slokickboxing.com/instructors.htm
Chuck Liddell is the Master Instructor at SLO Kickboxing. He is currently ranked #1in the world. His martial arts career began at the age of twelve with Koei-Kan Karate today he holds 2 black belts and a national championship title.

Within koei-kan karate, whatever that may be.


Chuck started the sport of wrestling in San Marcos High School in Santa Barbara his Sophomore year. He came to Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo where he was a 4-year starter at the Division 1 Wrestling program. Chuck was also a State Champion in Freestyle Wrestling for California. After his wrestling career, he missed the competition.

Strong credentials. He did well on the national level as well.


As fate would have it, he heard of a former professional kickboxer by the name of John "The Train" Hackleman, world-class kickboxer ranked #5 in the world.

Ranked #5 by who? Hackleman is a very capable MMA trainer, but his self proclaimed credentials in everything from kickboxing to boxing to karate to kenpo rather exceed reality.


Chuck went to John's dojo called the "The Pit" in the hills of Arroyo Grande, CA and learned the art of kickboxing and also earned his 2nd black belt in Kajukembo. Chuck went on to become a North American Champion for the IKF, WKA, WKC and the USMTA.

You should realize that the "alphabet soup" for kickboxing is much much worse than for boxing and that most of these organizations mean little. I don't doubt Liddell's kickboxing abilities, but they are hardly at the same level as those of many others.

[Rook]

Neither is known for their grappling despite that.

Against the caliber of grapplers that Igor faced, that should be no surprise. However, he is still far from a pure striker.

Silva should be known as an excellent grappler. His skills may be underrated by whoever you are taking it from.

[James Kovacich]

Ranked #5 by who? Hackleman is a very capable MMA trainer, but his self proclaimed credentials in everything from kickboxing to boxing to karate to kenpo rather exceed reality.



.
John lists the professional organizations he was ranked from, if you think they are self proclaimed, then it's up to you to do the reseach and back it up. Otherwise it's hearsay. Heres his bio so you could prove it.
http://www.knucklepit.com/mixed-martial-arts-john_hackleman.htm

As far as the self proclaimed Kenpo. It's not Kenpo. He was promoted to 10th degree in Kaju kenbo by Waler Godin. Nothing self proclaimed there. John Hackleman is listed here under Walter Godin and his 10th degree promotion shortly before Godins death is public knowledge.
http://www.leewardkenpokarate.com/tree/tree.htm