a puncher versus a grappler...for you UFC/Pride and mma guys

[Adonis]

I agree if you shoot from a distance you surely can eat a knee. Most fighters set up there shoot off of strikes though which helps unbalance or distract the opponent so the shoot works pretty effectively.

[Zaine]

ya know, that question isnt really fair to ask. It all depends on the fighter and the instructor. If the instructor is bad, then the fighter will be bad. And if the instructor is good but the fighter isnt, then your screwed if your the fighter. In UFC ive seen strikers beat ground fighters, and ive seen the exact opposite. It all depends.

[White Warlock]

This is from a guy in another forum! He has senn people Eat knees and elbows, this sort of sums up what I am trying to say! You can agree or disagree but it happens. You can take heed or get knocked out next time you try to shoot!

I don't know the guy, but you should probably have quoted him by name. Anyway, what he described was what he stated at the 'bottom' of his entire post. It is in reference to defense against 'inexperienced' shooters.

• He wrote, "Just some tips for those defending against shooters that have no experience."

Now, that is exactly the point. Inexperienced essentially means not good. It is not good to shoot leading with your head. It is not good to shoot by putting your face inline with their knee. It is not good to do a shoot from a distance without ensuring the opponent is incapable of presenting an attack like a kick or knee. It is simply not good...

That said, what 'can' happen still falls into the what ifs. What if your opponent isn't an experienced shooter? Well, if he is not an experienced shooter, then he's also likely not an experienced grappler... so who cares what you throw at him? He'll go down simply because he's not good.

The thing is, i don't consider someone a grappler unless they are an experienced grappler... and that's what this discussion is about, striker vs grappler, not striker versus n00blet.

[Kajukenbopr]

yeah but when you go do that "hold on" thing you mentioned it isn't just holding on and doing nothing your going for something. to put pain or disable the attacker. if you just hold on the person and do nothing with your postion or your postion then you deserve to get beat by the attackers friends.

even the famous "ground and pound" can take more than 1 minute to knock out an opponent, and it will take about 5 seconds before you have your attackers friends on you . you've seen how long UFC fighters take to do their moves(not always but generally)and they train to do them much faster than most people.

[h2whoa]

I also notice that UFC fighters use the cage alot when there opponent is grounded!!

What about on open ground?

[AndrewGreen]

I also notice that UFC fighters use the cage alot when there opponent is grounded!!

What about on open ground?

Works just fine on open ground...

Most UFC matches are also fought on a lightly padded floor against a professional fighter...

[JissenKumite100]

I disagree with the analogy that a grappler will beat a striker 99 times out of 100. I do agree that if a good grappler meets up with a remedial striker, then the grappler will proabably win. But if the striker has good take down defense then the grappler is in trouble. Look at Chuck Lidell for example, in UFC 52 he beat Randy Cotour, the best grappler in the UFC but knocking him out 2 minuts and 40 secnods into the first round. Look at Yves Edwards, excellent striker with excellent take down defense. In my style we dont like to go to the ground becuase in most cases when you go to the ground up come three of his buddies and before you know it your done. So, i would say that taking a person to the ground is probably not the best idea and i would also say in closeing that a grappler has a 50-50 chance of beating a striker. In accuality thats the highest probability you ever have of winning a street fight becuase you never know what the other guy can do.

[Adonis]

IF you don't do the ground then you don't know how to defend against a grappler if your put there. Plus if the other is a better striker. Probably better option if you do go to the ground if you can't run away first.

Also If its pure striker against pure grappler more of my money is on the grappler. Just my opinion.

Now if they both have experience in take down defense.

Were chuck liddel is a grappler also that prefers to strike. He is a D1 wrestler with 8 years of doing BJJ his ground skills are sick!

Any one if both are versed in striking and grappling then obvisouly its to the better fighter with the better game plan, and physical conditioning.

Heck even on the latest TUF when Joe stevenson faught the boxer. His stand up was better then joes but he couldn't stop the take down. Joe took him down and elbowed him bad until he tapped.

Either way I don't discredit striking. You should be well versed in both grappling and striking. Just my opinion is unless you get the knock out right off the bat or are good on take down defense the edge goes to the grappler. If you get taken down and are on your back the grappler has the edge cause the strikes don't come much into play accept for eyes gouges and throat strikes but y our just as much open for those type of moves if not more so.

If the grappler is in the more dominant postion.

Either way this is still what "IF"ing you need to know both.

You can say you don't want to do ground or much if at all of it because his buddies but there times where you got your buddies or just you and another guy either way. IF the person is better striker your going to bet beat better you take them to the ground. Also grappling is becoming more popular by the day. the thugs do martial arts also. Weather be boxing or grappling or both. the notion that thugs don't have perserverence to gain any skill from martial arts is silly. People learn to protect them selves and they will seek out the training for it rather the good or the bad guy.

Even some one who has done some wrestling there are those that take that stratgey if in a fight of slamming some one and beating them on the ground with out having formal martial arts training. So I rather be prepared.

[SubGrappler]

I disagree with the analogy that a grappler will beat a striker 99 times out of 100. I do agree that if a good grappler meets up with a remedial striker, then the grappler will proabably win. But if the striker has good take down defense then the grappler is in trouble. .

Now you're talking about cross training. No one is debating this field. In the world of mixed martial arts, striking is just as important as grappling. Fighters dont neccesarily win based on their style so much anymore as they win because they were better prepared than their opponent.

What I have italicized says it all. If the striker has good takedown defense (like ex Division 1 wrestler Chuck Liddel) then he can utilize his strikes on the feet rather well. Problem is, most strikers in the world of martial arts have NO takedown defense whatsoever, let alone a poor attempt at one.

Without cross training, a pure grappler defeats a pure striker much more than just half the time. This is simply because forcing a clinch is a relatively easy thing to do. When a grappler and a pure striker get in a clinch, it becomes a huge mismatch which the grappler often wins.

[White Warlock]

agreed.