Striking and Grappling

[cross]

I personally think that grappling arts and throwing arts (like Judo, Hapkido, and Aikido) offer better techniques to control a situation, and keep it from escalating into a very hostile, dangerous situation

If you have to take physical control of another person(which is what i assume your talking about here), then id say the situation is already fairly hostile.

To remedy this, I train in both striking and grappling arts to make sure I have both skill sets. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth having just one or the other as opposed to both. These days you never know what an opponent's skills are, or where a confrontation will take you, and I feel that if you really are concerned with self defense, you have to have both striking and grappling skills, or else you're leaving yourself vulnerable. Anyone have any insight into this?

Thats exactly right. Having one without the other might be enough, but if you are purely a striker, or purely a grappler, then the last place you want to be introduced to your weak area is mid fight. So i agree with you. If you want to learn effective self defence its important to not only learn, but pressure test all ranges of combat.

[cross]

I think that having a knowledge of both striking and grappling is very important. When going to the ground, it is especially important to be able to work from the position that you are in, and to work to get into a better position.

Agreed. And if you are most comfortable striking, or are trying to escape, some working knowledge of grappling will make it alot easier for you to get back to your feet.

[Havoc88]

Agree with most of the points made above.

I would like do add, that I think you can better start out in the one or the other than immediately start training in both. Better to exel in one art than to know a bit of two+ arts.

Like TS said, he has already 12 years of stand up experience. He probably know really well how to take care of him standing up. Now he starts with training the grappling aspect. IMO, with my really limited MA experience, the best way.

Tom

[cross]

I would like do add, that I think you can better start out in the one or the other than immediately start training in both. Better to exel in one art than to know a bit of two+ arts.

Depends on your goal. If you want to be a good artist than i agree. However if your goal is self defence then doing one without the other leaves you with a huge gap in your training.

Like TS said, he has already 12 years of stand up experience. He probably know really well how to take care of him standing up. Now he starts with training the grappling aspect. IMO, with my really limited MA experience, the best way.

What happens if you start training striking only, and your attacked tommorow, without any choice the assault enters grappling range..... Will you say "hang on mate, could you come back in 12 years, i havnt learned grappling yet"???

In that example i hope you can see why from a self defence perspective knowing a little bit about both ranges is better than knowing nothing about 1 of them.

[bushido_man96]

I think that having a knowledge of both striking and grappling is very important. When going to the ground, it is especially important to be able to work from the position that you are in, and to work to get into a better position.

Agreed. And if you are most comfortable striking, or are trying to escape, some working knowledge of grappling will make it alot easier for you to get back to your feet.

I would also mention that the more that you know about takedowns from groundfighting/grappling, then the more easily you can defend from being taken down.

I would like do add, that I think you can better start out in the one or the other than immediately start training in both. Better to exel in one art than to know a bit of two+ arts.

Depends on your goal. If you want to be a good artist than i agree. However if your goal is self defence then doing one without the other leaves you with a huge gap in your training.

I think I would have to agree with cross, here. I think that striking and grappling are different enough that it would not be very detrimental to train in both at the same time.

What happens if you start training striking only, and your attacked tommorow, without any choice the assault enters grappling range..... Will you say "hang on mate, could you come back in 12 years, i havnt learned grappling yet"???

This is a good point here, and very relevant. I have done a study of the Grappler vs. Striker challenge matches, and in all of the scenarios that I have read, the grappler was able to beat the striker. Now, I am not saying that this is always the case, but even grapplers have a very basic knowledge of striking. They especially know that if you are on your back, and they are on top, they can just swing away. I hope to never be in that position.

[Havoc88]

Cross and BM, very good points. But here's another thing than. Lets say, you have trained half your time grappling and half your time striking. Then you get into a fight with a pure grappler. The fight will probably go to the ground very quick, and because he is the better grappler, you loose. When you get into a pure striker, you may be able to get him to the ground so you win. But if you ain't able to do that, you loose again because he is the better striker.

Now the things I have just mentioned will only be like that when you are fighting 1 on 1 and there are no bystanders so there is no time limit. When you only get to fight untill the bouncers get there, knowing both will be better I think.

Just some food for thoughts.

Tom

[cross]

But here's another thing than. Lets say, you have trained half your time grappling and half your time striking. Then you get into a fight with a pure grappler. The fight will probably go to the ground very quick, and because he is the better grappler, you loose. When you get into a pure striker, you may be able to get him to the ground so you win. But if you ain't able to do that, you loose again because he is the better striker.

If you are talking about a fight, then yes, the more skilled person has an advantage. However, self defence is a completely different animal. You do enough so that you can escape, that doesnt mean you have to fight on until you submit him, knock him out, or until the bouncer comes. You do what you have to and get out of there fast. Its nothing like a drawn out sparring match where you go back and forth trying tactics until you get the better of the other person.

In self defence there are alot of variables, multiple attackers, improvised weapons, the element of surprise, environmental factors etc. Its not has clean cut has grappler vs striker. If you are serious about learning to defend yourself, you better have a working knowledge of both.

[cross]

Lets say, you have trained half your time grappling and half your time striking.

This brings up a point regarding how you train. If your goal is to learn self defence, the 2 arnt seperate things, there are all trained together. Although at a basic level you will work each thing individually at times, just the same has you would work just punches and just kicks. But you should always have to goal of combining the two elements. Its like AndrewGreen said in an earlier post:

If you want what you do to be pratcial you need to do both, not seperate, but togethter. You need to learn how to punch your way into a clinch, how to take someone down if they are beating you on your feet, how to avoid ground'n pound tactics, etc.

[bushido_man96]

Cross and BM, very good points. But here's another thing than. Lets say, you have trained half your time grappling and half your time striking. Then you get into a fight with a pure grappler. The fight will probably go to the ground very quick, and because he is the better grappler, you loose. When you get into a pure striker, you may be able to get him to the ground so you win. But if you ain't able to do that, you loose again because he is the better striker.

I see your point, Tom. However, I feel that just because you spend time training in both, it doesn't mean that one has to sacrifice for the other. If you get into a fight with a better fighter, then the better fighter may win. Then again, he may not. There are so many variables in fighting, that it is tough to always predict an outcome.

If it were me, I would rather be more prepared for both scenarios than be expertly drilled in just one. I feel that you can reach a level of expertise in both areas....like anything, though, it takes time.

[Havoc88]

Thanks both, I think you guys are right. Learning a lot again today

Would you guy's go as far as a 50-50 ratio, or more like 60-40 or even 70-30?

Tom