punching vs grappling.

[drop bear]

And kind of my take on it.

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

But why iis conjecture a bit.

What I think is two aspects.

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

Ok. The very simple dynamic of the double leg.

There is a range where striking is dangerous to a double leg attempt.

If your striking is effective in that you are doing damage. It makes that double leg attempt desperate and less effective. They have to wade through punches and kicks. And shoot in from further away.

But as soon as the striking is not effective either they block or clinch or close the gap. You are much less able to defend that takedown with strikes alone.

So you see this position where someone has grabbed your hips or your leg and you are trying to bang away at their head to loosen them off. This becomes a really low percentage response. Because it is not fundamentally preventing the takedown unless you can finish the fight right there.

They know if they can just wear shots and get you on your back the fight is theirs. And those less effective clinched up strikes will be returned with interest.

 

[drop bear]

Advancing position. I can strike a guy into a corner and still not guarantee a finish. Popping out and countering is a split second turn around. Because I may be in the advantage but he is not secured there.

But if I have a dominant clinch. I am more likely to get the takedown. Which means I am more likely to hit the ground in a dominant position. Progress to a better position and my ability to finish just becomes more and more certain.

 

[Danny T]

Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.

 

[drop bear]

Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.

How do you feel that changes the dynamic?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.

Sometime a "kick" can be a free gift to a good grappler's "single leg"? IMO, a grappler will have more concern about the "knock down head punch". As far as kicks, it doesn't bother a grappler that much.

 

[Flying Crane]

The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training.

That is the fatal flaw in all these idiotic debates: the assumption that everything works equally well (or equally poorly) for everyone, and the assumption that everyone should desire to do the method that the debater champions.

My experience is that a method that focuses on grappling simply does not work for me. I have no interest in it so I do not and will not train in it, so it will never work for me. I train in something else and that works quite nicely for me. I'll never be so arrogant as to tell you what you should do, based on my own personal preferences. There are a few people here who ought to consider extending the same courtesy as well.

If the Lord Dictator of the World told me to train bjj and stop training Kung fu, or I would be put to death, I would take up swimming. And I would practice my kung fu in the middle of the night in a room without windows.

Hey, if you want to feel smug about what you do, and that makes you feel like you are doing the best thing in the world, go right ahead. Plenty of people here can see that nonsense for what it is.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

From my experience all things being equal grappling at the same level of experience tends to win out over striking.

Agree! Lately I like to take the following test.

- If you can hit my head or body within your 1st 10 punches, you win that round.
- If I can get a successful clinch within your 1st 10 punches, I win that round.

Test this for 15 rounds and record the result. Since no knock/take down will be involved, the test can be safe and friendly.

 

[Drose427]

Im going to disagree


UFC since the beginning to now is a good example.

Even back then there were strong grapplers who got wailed on and still lost.

Tuli, The guy hackney crotch shotted into submission

Several more,

Even now we see guys get knocked out going for subs or bettering position because a striker is just incessant.

Theres simply too many variables.

Whos more skilled?

Whos quicker? Your mid-long range strikes mean little if you cant connect any before the grappler moves in

Who has faster reaction speed? Your BB in BJJ means little if you get rocked or knocked out with the first punch or kick or kick.

What are the rules?

Whos the most relentless? Fighting like Hackney is gonna shut down grappler a lot quicker than being squeamish

 

[drop bear]

The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training.

That is the fatal flaw in all these idiotic debates: the assumption that everything works equally well (or equally poorly) for everyone, and the assumption that everyone should desire to do the method that the debater champions.

My experience is that a method that focuses on grappling simply does not work for me. I have no interest in it so I do not and will not train in it, so it will never work for me. I train in something else and that works quite nicely for me. I'll never be so arrogant as to tell you what you should do, based on my own personal preferences. There are a few people here who ought to consider extending the same courtesy as well.

If the Lord Dictator of the World told me to train bjj and stop training Kung fu, or I would be put to death, I would take up swimming. And I would practice my kung fu in the middle of the night in a room without windows.

Hey, if you want to feel smug about what you do, and that makes you feel like you are doing the best thing in the world, go right ahead. Plenty of people here can see that nonsense for what it is.

Which is all well and good. But does not change the mechanics of what happens in a grappling,striking engagement.

I have no issues with people playing the violin. But playing the violin for takedown defence will have its problems.

Oh but you can hit them with the violin huh?

You can also increase you ability to strike if you understand the mechanics of what is occurring when you do.

 

[drop bear]

Im going to disagree


UFC since the beginning to now is a good example.

Even back then there were strong grapplers who got wailed on and still lost.

Tuli, The guy hackney crotch shotted into submission

Several more,

Even now we see guys get knocked out going for subs or bettering position because a striker is just incessant.

Theres simply too many variables.

Whos more skilled?

Whos quicker? Your mid-long range strikes mean little if you cant connect any before the grappler moves in

Who has faster reaction speed? Your BB in BJJ means little if you get rocked or knocked out with the first punch or kick or kick.

What are the rules?

Whos the most relentless? Fighting like Hackney is gonna shut down grappler a lot quicker than being squeamish

Which is fine. But we have to individually achieve the Best result we can. Be mark hunt is not going to do us any good.

 

[geezer]

The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training.

True. My problem is that I'm interested in almost everything. If I were younger and had more time, I'd be taking BJJ right now in addition to my WC and Eskrima..

Now my problem with this debate is it assumes that it has to be an "either-or" choice of striking or grappling. Ideally you would use both!

However, if I had to say which is ultimately more effective, I'd say enhanced striking. Give a striker an enhancement, say a stout club for example and the equation changes. But if you've watched any Dog Brothers videos, you can see that grappling is still very important. So enhance the striking a bit more, and take away any and all protective gear and replace the club with a large sharp knife or even a sword, and striking becomes much more important.

Taking away the protective gear is essential however, since as any HEMA practitioner will point out, fully armored knights used a lot of grappling moves. Even the knight's sword was used as much as a lever as a chopper. So let's, forget knives and swords, and just use guns. Striking your opponent with bullets from a distance eliminates grappling all-together. End of debate!

 

[Danny T]

How do you feel that changes the dynamic?

Sometime a "kick" can be a free gift to a good grappler's "single leg"? IMO, a grappler will have more concern about the "knock down head punch". As far as kicks, it doesn't bother a grappler that much.

My reference was of a grappler vs a striker/grappler not a striker vs a grappler.

 

[Drose427]

Which is fine. But we have to individually achieve the Best result we can. Be mark hunt is not going to do us any good.

Thats kind of my point here,

We've seen Grapplers lose to strikers, and strikers lose to grapplers.

Its not a matter of striking vs grappling, it depends on a culmination of variables,

Having one side makes this debate a decent sized crapshoot

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There is another side effect that people may not notice here. Since closer distance will be to the grappler's favor, a grappler will like to move forward instead of to move backward. This kind of "move forward" spirit will not only help the combat "courage" issue, it also helps to develop a "move forward" and "willing to take risk" attitude through career/life development.

 

[Drose427]

There is another side effect that people may not notice here. Since closer distance will be to the grappler's favor, a grappler will like to move forward instead of move backward. This kind of "move forward" spirit will not only help the combat "courage" issue, it also help to develop a "move forward" and "willing to take risk" in career development.

Moving into the attack to counter is striking 101 as well

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My reference was of a grappler vs a striker/grappler not a striker vs a grappler.

Agree! A + B > A That's the true spirit of "cross training".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Moving into the attack to counter is striking 101 as well

But the grappling range is much closer than the striking range.

 

[Drose427]

But the grappling range is much closer than the striking range.

Not neccesarily,

Its pretty common for boxers to clinch like that and work the body, in Karate/TKD schools youll see the bigger guys getting close to that range to throw body punches.

I mean proper Boxing Hooks and uppercuts are meant to but used when youre overly close like that and youre unable to throws straights

 

[Flying Crane]

Which is all well and good. But does not change the mechanics of what happens in a grappling,striking engagement.

I have no issues with people playing the violin. But playing the violin for takedown defence will have its problems.

Oh but you can hit them with the violin huh?

You can also increase you ability to strike if you understand the mechanics of what is occurring when you do.

And this debate remains idiotic.