Jump to content
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Grappling arts vs Striking Arts


Recommended Posts

Ryan Parker's an Okinawan Shorin Ryu guy. I don't know who his instructor is/was, but this makes it unlikely he's one of Dillman, Moneymaker or any of the other kyusho salesmen's students.

 

then why did they call him a "pressure point striker" but yes he also trained in Karate.

 

If you re-read my post, you'll notice I simply said it's unlikely he's a student of anyone from the DKI $$$ machine. Since ryukyu kempo doesn't have a monopoly on kyusho, that's entirely different than saying he's not a pressure point guy. Though, in his case, he's more known for his kiko breathing allowing him to stand there at take a beating.

Secondly, Remco Pardoel is a jujitsu guy.

 

I stand corrected. Apparently, he presents himself as a judoka as well. I just took the card from the UFCII I attended at face value. . .though Gary Goodrich used to be a KSW guy and now he goes by something else so that's maybe not a stellar idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Grappling is neccessary to fight a skilled opponent. Striking isn't, submissions aren't. But to win you'll need one of them.

 

You need to be able to move while seperatedm while clinched and while on the ground.

 

Pure grapplers do all three. Pure strikers do only one (entering clinch or ground is no longer pure striking.) That is why grapplers have the advantage, they know how to move in every range.

 

Whether they choose to look for a submission, look to improve position or strike in those ranges is up to them.

 

Funnily enough, a lot of wrestlers (pure grappling) win by strikes...

 

The question isn't grappling vs striking.

 

It's learning to move in all ranges vs learning to move in some ranges.

 

Which is better should be pretty obvious.

 

Actually, this topic IS grappling vs striking, hence the title. Obviously all three are better than just one, but a proponent of striking arts could also say, "well, we practice all three as well." The fact that they didn't traditionally have ground-fighting is moot, unless you are practicing to become a historian.

Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, this topic IS grappling vs striking, hence the title. Obviously all three are better than just one, but a proponent of striking arts could also say, "well, we practice all three as well." The fact that they didn't traditionally have ground-fighting is moot, unless you are practicing to become a historian.

 

No, as soon as you enter a clinch or hit the ground YOU ARE GRAPPLING!

 

So arguing striking is better then grappling, but only if your striking involves lots of grappling is rather pointless...


Andrew Green

http://innovativema.ca - All the top martial arts news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since it's striking versus grappling that would imply that the grappling person wouldn't be permitted to use striking for the purposes of this comparison. Otherwise it would be both versus striking like you said, and obviously that's better.

Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...