Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?

[Ironbear24]

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?

 

[drop bear]

Observation mostly.

 

[Ironbear24]

Observation mostly.

From where? If we want to consider UFC I see tons of fighters winning via TKO.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Well honestly what you are asking does not make much sense to me. However, I have taught striking to a judo club, which resulted in me learning judo (I was never given a rank since I taught striking but practiced for ~3 years). What ken/mpo teaches for close range is incredibly effective, so long as you know how to deal with grappling. However, most people once they know how to deal with grappling ignore striking in that range, This is why, IMHO, you may see the focus of grappling in MMA.

From my own experience with grapplers and strikers, the grapplers dont think that they are better, but rather that if they can close the distance they will win. If you show them this is not the case (assuming you know how to strike close distance against grapplers) they acknowledge it and are willing to learn striking. Once again, this paragraph is purely from my experience, and should not be generalized to grapplers as a whole.

 

[Langenschwert]

It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.

Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble. As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.

There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.

In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.

 

[drop bear]

From where? If we want to consider UFC I see tons of fighters winning via TKO.

Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.

The concepts get a bit weird here.

They are kind of opposing concepts and are technically really bad for each other.

So when you strike you are vulnerable to grappling when you grapple you are vulnerable to striking.

The issue is the striking range is harder to maintain when you see strikers fight they cannot maintain that range for more than a few secondss until they are either two close or too far.

A grappler can maintain his range longer and so is at an advantage more often.

A grappler is also at advantage going forwards which is just structurally easier to do.

It is also easier to get a take down than to ko someone.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It's a matter of odds. There's a reason why professional warriors such as knights and samurai favoured grappling as the unarmed portion of their arts.

Yes, a good Muay Thai fighter can KO a wrestler. However, if he doesn't, he's in serious trouble. As a striker, you only get one good chance to deal with a grappler trying to close with you. The grappler, once close has say two or three chances to grapple you before you can reset range or land a sweet elbow. If he's good at throwing you get hit with a planet. Ouch.

There are no absolutes though, as we've all seen. Sometimes grapplers get knocked out. Sometimes strikers get submitted or broken by grapplers.

In short, bet on the grappler over the striker, but don't bet your house on it.

I would disagree with this. From what you said, you're assuming that the striker only has one range to attack from. Lets say they start from mid range, thats the first chance. Now the grappler enters distance, but as they do, you push them back to mid range, giving you a second chance. Then they close distance again; they are in close distance but there is always a slight bit of time before they get their throw off. If you are used to grapplers, you now have a third chance. So there are your 2-3 chances right there. More if you learned takedown defence and are able to stay standing and striking as they attempt to take you down. Standup with grappling defense, IMO is one of the most effective things to learn Self-defense wise. It gets you out of most situations, excluding an MMA opponent, and even if you include MMA, if the opponent hasn't done proper strength training you will still most likely be fine overall.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.

The concepts get a bit weird here.

They are kind of opposing concepts and are technically really bad for each other.

So when you strike you are vulnerable to grappling when you grapple you are vulnerable to striking.

The issue is the striking range is harder to maintain when you see strikers fight they cannot maintain that range for more than a few secondss until they are either two close or too far.

A grappler can maintain his range longer and so is at an advantage more often.

A grappler is also at advantage going forwards which is just structurally easier to do.

It is also easier to get a take down than to ko someone.

So I agree with what you are saying overall, especially with your statement that a striker can't remain in a range for more than a few seconds.
If we assume that there are four ranges (long, medium, close, grappling), would you consider it effective to teach striking in each of those four ranges, along with how to transition between them? I understand that getting thrown would ruin any of these, but if someone can transition between the four ranges that I listed and generally transition between them without issue, would you admit that this is better than grappling overall for self defense?

 

[Kenpoguy123]

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?

Because of ufc fanboys who don't understand anything else. Yes jiu jitsu was very effective against every style in 1993 but look at Gracie vs Hughes same weight and Hughes style was wrestling so it should be easy for Gracie to sub him but he never tried 1 submission. Basically the sport passed him by. All the old ufc and those videos of Gracie were against people who'd never heard of jiu jitsu these days people know the style even if you never trained you know what an arm bar is or a triangle. All the talk about striking being useless is nonsense look at the ufc stipe miocic is a former boxer, Jon jones was originally a wrestler but most of his success is due to his striking now, robbie lawlor a straight up brawler, connor mcgreggor a striker with awful wrestling and jiu jitsu, Dominic cruz former wrestler but mainly strikes these days. All ufc champions where striking is their base

Also plenty of former champs as strikers bas rutten, chuck liddel, rampage Jackson, forest griffin, shogun, lyoto machida, Anderson silva, anthony pettis all people who have had great success with striking backgrounds

 

[kuniggety]

I would disagree with this. From what you said, you're assuming that the striker only has one range to attack from. Lets say they start from mid range, thats the first chance. Now the grappler enters distance, but as they do, you push them back to mid range, giving you a second chance. Then they close distance again; they are in close distance but there is always a slight bit of time before they get their throw off. If you are used to grapplers, you now have a third chance. So there are your 2-3 chances right there. More if you learned takedown defence and are able to stay standing and striking as they attempt to take you down. Standup with grappling defense, IMO is one of the most effective things to learn Self-defense wise. It gets you out of most situations, excluding an MMA opponent, and even if you include MMA, if the opponent hasn't done proper strength training you will still most likely be fine overall.

Transitioning out of grappling range is very difficult, no matter how much you train. I think it's easier to classify your long, medium, close, grappling as kicking, punching, knee/elbow, clinch/grapple. A person moving forward and closing the distance can move faster and much easier than a person moving backwards can without losing their balance or footing. This is effectively the strength of the "shoot". Your sprawl better be on point because simply trying to open the distance back to punching or kicking distance is going to land you on the grown. Each has their strengths. If I'm surrounded by three people, I'm not taking a guy to the ground as that's folly even though I feel confident with my BJJ. However, standing there trading punches with someone stronger or with a longer reach is going to land me in a world of hurt. Weight classes are there for a reason in striking arts. They use them in Grappling but you can see a lighter person winning in absolute divisions where a lighter weight will most likely get knocked the hell out by a heavy weight. A skilled grappler can effectively minimize, but not negate, a strength disadvantage.

 

[drop bear]

So I agree with what you are saying overall, especially with your statement that a striker can't remain in a range for more than a few seconds.
If we assume that there are four ranges (long, medium, close, grappling), would you consider it effective to teach striking in each of those four ranges, along with how to transition between them? I understand that getting thrown would ruin any of these, but if someone can transition between the four ranges that I listed and generally transition between them without issue, would you admit that this is better than grappling overall for self defense?

Self defence is a different equation. At which point you should know both grappling and striking.

 

[Buka]

"Why do people think...."

Probably for the same reason people think there's a dark side of the moon.

I blame Pink Floyd.

 

[Hanzou]

Because of ufc fanboys who don't understand anything else. Yes jiu jitsu was very effective against every style in 1993 but look at Gracie vs Hughes same weight and Hughes style was wrestling so it should be easy for Gracie to sub him but he never tried 1 submission. Basically the sport passed him by. All the old ufc and those videos of Gracie were against people who'd never heard of jiu jitsu these days people know the style even if you never trained you know what an arm bar is or a triangle. All the talk about striking being useless is nonsense look at the ufc stipe miocic is a former boxer, Jon jones was originally a wrestler but most of his success is due to his striking now, robbie lawlor a straight up brawler, connor mcgreggor a striker with awful wrestling and jiu jitsu, Dominic cruz former wrestler but mainly strikes these days. All ufc champions where striking is their base

Also plenty of former champs as strikers bas rutten, chuck liddel, rampage Jackson, forest griffin, shogun, lyoto machida, Anderson silva, anthony pettis all people who have had great success with striking backgrounds

They had success in striking because they're highly skilled in grappling and can stuff takedown attempts. Hell, Silva and Machida are both black belts in Bjj from Brazil, so it's not like you're dealing with pure strikers. One look at the first Silva vs Sonnen fight will confirm that for anyone.

The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.

Ironbear, no one has ever said that grapplers always beat strikers. However, (all things being equal) pure grapplers do tend to have an advantage over pure strikers for a variety of reasons.

 

[drop bear]

They had success in striking because they're highly skilled in grappling and can stuff takedown attempts. Hell, Silva and Machida are both black belts in Bjj from Brazil, so it's not like you're dealing with pure strikers. One look at the first Silva vs Sonnen fight will confirm that for anyone.

The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.

Ironbear, no one has ever said that grapplers always beat strikers. However, (all things being equal) pure grapplers do tend to have an advantage over pure strikers for a variety of reasons.

You also have to change your striking style of combat grapplers.it is different than the one used against strikers.

 

[Buka]

The bottom line is that no one enters MMA without learning submission grappling. That includes Matt Hughes.

I think people tend to forget that.

MMA at any level, is one tough sport. UFC level is, perhaps, the most difficult fighting competition that has ever been around in modern times. You can't just train your art, regardless of what your art is, you have to prepare for so much more. And even when you do, that other fella across the cage has, too.

What I find so enjoyable about UFC fighting is how many ways there are to win and lose in each and every match.

 

[Danny T]

Correct but their striking is designed to combat grappling.

Yep!

You also have to change your striking style of combat grapplers.it is different than the one used against strikers.

^^^^^^^ This.

 

[Phobius]

Grapplers learn striking. Strikers learn grappling.

Grappling was a game where most people had no experience before but don't think that is the case anymore.

Striking most people have the basic of from TV, school or whatnot already, grappler or not.

 

[Andrew Green]

Because it is a lot easier to teach a wrestler to cover up enough to get a hold of you, and once you go down you're not getting back up unless you are trained in it then it is to teach a striker to avoid takedowns and do enough damage to disable you. And you can see that in early UFC, as well as lower tier MMA. If one guy is determined to take it to the ground, unless the other guy is a good wrestler it's going to end up on the ground. They might get hit a couple times before it does, and occasionally get caught and KOed, but most of the time it's going to go to the ground.

 

[mograph]

A simplistic analysis for your approval: I think it may be about the size and contact time of the contact area.

A striking weapon (body part: fist, foot, elbow) is relatively small and contacts the opponent for a short period of time. It also has to be retracted in order to strike again. While a hit can be very effective, its nature (quick and small) narrows its odds of contacting its target.
On the other hand, grappling uses a larger surface area (body, arms, legs), and is in contact for a longer period of time, allowing more time to find a way to affect an opponent. Yes, there are risks when in such close contact, but I think that grappling may be a higher percentage play in a sporting context.

It's just a theory that came from reading some of these posts, and I have no idea if it has any merit.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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?

Most people gravitate to wrestling and grappling for the simple reason you aren't getting hit in the face. No one likes to get punched in the face, but if you are training a striking art then it's going to happen. If you speak to most people who don't train in fighting, you'll see that they cringe at the thought of being hit. Many will even tell you they don't want to get it. They don't want to feel that pain of being hit and then getting hit again. When you are on the ground wrestling then the striking for the most part is taken out of the equation which means you aren't going to receive a lot of damage from striking unless your oppoent in ground and pound mode.

Most of the people who are getting on your nerves about this are people who are fans of MMA and not actually fighters or people who train a martial arts. Unfortunately there's not much you can do about people like that. Let them live in their fantasy world.