Striking Vs. Grappling

[White Warlock]

I've come to like both of your insights, so this is tough. I'll have to side with both and neither of you two here. There really is no 'majority' of cases to base it on. I do agree that a strike or kick is a good starter if you're the aggressor, and if you're given the opportunity, but even if you don't have the striking skills, you can opt to go right into a grappling scenario, if such a situation warrants it.

 

The thing to realize is... if you build up the mind and your understanding of the psychology of violence, you can better 'choose' to have a confrontation work your way and to your strengths, whatever they may be.

 

So... both striking and grappling skills are essential and, depending on your strengths, one could be more essential than the other but... what truly matters is the 'art.'

 

What i mean by this is, strikes and grappling techniques are like the paint and paintbrushes, while the circumstances of a conflict is the canvas. It takes the creative mind of a practitioner to apply just the right paints and strokes to the varying canvases encountered.

 

Canvases are all different, but in many respects all the same. The more skilled one is with the paintbrush, and the more variations in hues (paints), the more options available to the artist. But, no matter how many brushes or hues available to you, if you can't see the end result on the canvas (as Michealangelo used to see the figure trapped within the stone), then your efforts will be in vain.

 

Time, however, is the one huge difference between that of a paint artist and that of martial artist. A painter can stare at a canvas until he 'sees' what is there. A martial arts practitioner, when posed with a canvas, has but a fraction of a second... or less, to see and to act.

[Treebranch]

Technique is technique whether painting or fighting. It is how and why you apply the technique that makes you an artist.

[Sasori_Te]

I like that analogy White Warlock. I'll use that next time it comes up if you don't mind. Very nice post.

[Thuggish]

studying both, id prefer striking to grappling just because i can hit someone (love doing that) hurt then enough to end the fight, and its a little 'cleaner' if you will. however, if i had to choose just one to rely on in a streetfight, id say grappling. ground fighting is the last step in a fight- you dont see people taking it to the ground then getting back up. ive seen teachers at mma schools beaten by their students because the student could grapple and the teacher couldnt (he was a DAMN good striker).

 

far as cross is concerned, i think, at least for me, that grappling puts you in more control because you control where your opponents body goes, and injur him accordingly. on feet both people move, but when i throw you to the ground im goin in for the kill.

[daoshi]

Those are good points. A quick, hard strike might end a confrontation, but don't forget the world of stand up grappling, i.e. Judo.

 

Judo is an offensive sytem. A hard slam to the concrete or even a carpeted floor will end as many conflicts as a good strike.

 

wushidao.com

[judoka86]

Grappling vs Striking is a topic that relies on circumstances. Where you are, How many, and weapons etc. Grappling is least effective if you have many opponents because locks must be held to stop your opponent. Throws take too much time to complete and leave your whole body occupied with only one man (then your messed because theyve got their boots to you now). Groundfighting in a multiple attacker situation is out of the question because you only have one opponent in your hold, and there are others that are going to kick you on the ground etc etc. Striking is the way to go when you have multiple opponents because it is fast and effective if done properly. Fast kicks to knee caps, groin etc etc. Punches and elbows when you are in close will take out many opponents much faster than grappling. A boxer would have a better chance in a multiple opponent situation than a judoka. They have fast, powerful punches and are generally strong. Judokas are trained to throw, mount, and choke, or whatever. So.... it relies purely on teh situation that your in.

[Gumbi]

I think many people have a misconception about grappling in fights. First thing that really needs to be addressed- sometimes you do not have a choice as to whether or not the fight goes to the ground- it just happens. Take into account boxing and kickboxing- how many times do you see a clinch occur? Now, if that ref isnt there to break them up, they're most likely going to fall down (one of them is). People talk about multiple attackers and such and say going to the ground is a BAD idea. For the most part, YOU'RE RIGHT- if you go to the ground you're going to get stomped and pounded. But lets look at it from another perspective- who's more qualified at RESISTING the takedown- a guy who trains extensively in grappling and is therefore very aware of takedowns, or a striker who has no idea of what even a double leg takedown is. In other words, if you want to keep the fight standing, sometimes its best to know grappling so that you can break off the clinch when your opponent attempts it. Also take into account that just about every person who you'll fight has a vague notion of how to throw a punch, and strength can help out a lot there, but how many people know how to escape an opponent once they're put on their back?

 

And if I hear another person say "oh for multiple oppenents, just kick guy #1 in the knee and break his leg, groin kick the other guy and drop him to his knees, and then its one on one" I just might have to *expletive* kill someone.

 

Seriously, that sounds like a great plan, it really does, and I wish it worked, as it was thought to be a good theory until it was soundly put to rest in MMA competitions. Best advice I heard for multiple opponents is just try to bulldoze your way through one. If you succeed, keep running straight through him and AWAY from the others.

 

As for people who say "NEVER go to the ground in a street fight" the only reason they say that is because they dont know what to do. I do, and am therefore perfectly comfortable on the ground.

[cross]

If you go to the ground your plan should be to get back up asap. Its hard to escape/run while your laying on the ground.

[White Warlock]

As for people who say "NEVER go to the ground in a street fight" the only reason they say that is because they dont know what to do. I do, and am therefore perfectly comfortable on the ground.

No, that is not the only reason.

 

There are many reasons why one should not go to the ground in a street fight, and yes... much of it does have to do with the possibility of not knowing how many are out there to oppose you. A spectator may just be a friend of one of the people you are fighting... as is the case that happened with my brother decades ago:

• He was working through college driving taxis, and the front passenger pulled out a gun, parked it to the side of his head, and demanded his money. My brother, being the scrapper-physicist he is, thrust the guy and the gun forward while hitting the brakes, knocked the gun under the steering wheel, and proceeded to pound the ... refuse from the... refuse.
   
  Catch here is, there was a passenger in the back seat, which proceeded to pound on my brother from over the front seat. But, my brother being loaded with adrenalin pretty much ignored the second passenger, since he didn't pose a weapon. Instead, he continued to pound on the initial target... until the second passenger got out and tried to help his partner escape through the front seat passenger side. But, again... my brother, being the scrapper-physicist that he is, also happens to be somewhat of a pit-bull-physicist (yes, i'm having fun saying that). He clung to the guy as he was dragged out by his friend... and continued the wailings and beatings on his initial target, the refuse who was foolish enough to pull out a gun on my brother. The second passenger (aka: his partner), tried and failed to get my brother to stop, so he ran.
   
  And here's where the ugly is. One of the spectators (and yes, there were a few), offered to hold this guy down while my brother chases the other guy. Refuse was already thoroughly beaten and subdued, so my brother accepted the offer and decided to take his lumbering-physicist self and apply it to the not-well-practiced art of running, after quickly locking his car (with the weapon inside).
   
  As well as can be noted by my sarcasm, my brother failed to capture the other guy and returned to his cab, only to find that the thoroughly beaten and subdued refuse... was nowhere to be found. Nor, for that matter, was the guy who offered to hold him down. A friend, it turned out.

All in all, my brother was lucky. He was lucky that the second passenger didn't have a lethal weapon to use and he was even luckier that the so-called good samaritan didn't decide to assist his friends by jumping into the fray... or grabbing a household utensil to finish my brother off. He was lucky that he was so thoroughly intimidating in his ferocity that he caused the 'spectator' friend to think twice about joining in.

 

Yes, going to the ground is not a good option and yes, it is not always a choice. However, if the option presents itself to go to the ground, and you are on the street, the temptation should be avoided, unless it is clear you are going to get your butt wiped by maintaining a stand-up confrontation. The thing to note is, going to the ground takes away a tremendous amount of your options, not the least of which is... escaping from the confrontation altogether.