Grappling arts vs Striking Arts

[Warp Spider]

Wrong again, Soft floors favor a striker since the better grappler will dictate positioning in most cases, are you one of those people who think that a striker has a better chance of out grappling a grappler and ending up on top?

 

I dont give me the "oh if you get knocked down it helps you" because if they are a halfway decent grappler they know how to break fall and it's not a sever issue.

 

There are a few techniques that favor grapplers such as the removal of the "downward" elbow in the UFC. but thats still 3 vs 1 in favor of the "striker"

 

Besides in the early days when there were hardly any rules it became obvious that Grapplers have the advantage. It almost comical that people still try and deny it to this day instead adressing the weakness like most.

 

Both people will hit the floor, and even stiking arts teach how to fall. However, I would argue that a striker would be much better conditioned to withstand impacts, such as those from striking a hard floor.

[TJS]

Both people will hit the floor

 

Your right when I pick you up and slam you with a double leg I will also end up on top of you in a side mount.

 

When I Hipp toss you to the ground I will proabably follow.

 

If I sweep you from the clinch I will land in the mount.

 

When I slam you on you head with double underhooks I will end up on top.

 

Do you have a valid point to this? you saying the grappler is going to hurt his knee when he slams someon on their head or back?

 

Any properly performed throw/takdown will hurt the person being taken down alot more than the one doing it.

I would argue that a striker would be much better conditioned to withstand impacts

 

So people who spend alot of time taking people down and getting taken down themselves are less condiditoned to do so than someone who spends little or no time or practice doing it?

 

I guess I could use your thinking and claim a grappler is better conditioned to handle getting punched and kicked than a kickboxer.

such as those from striking a hard floor.

 

Like i said it's going to hurt whoever is getting taken down, most of the time that will be the "striker" . Maybe these guys are so conditioned they can get slammed on concrete floors and not get hurt..who knows...

[JohnnyS]

Your arguments are weak Warp Spider.

 

The early UFC's had no rules regarding prohibited strikes, yet the strikers didn't win. Ryan Parker, a former regular on rec.martial-arts was a karate expert who claimed he couldn't be armbarred and his pressure point strikes would give him victory. He lost via armbar to Remco Pardoe (hardly a great grappler).

 

The flooring is a non-issue. You think someone fighting for money is going to care about scrapes and bruises, or landing hard ?

 

Even in the early days where it was two strikers fighting, the fighters always ended up grappling. This clearly shows that a fight will always get closer and closer, not stay at striking distance.

 

For an MMA fighter to be successful these days, they have to know grappling.

[Cybren]

i'm not a follower of the UFC, how many were considered "early", two or three?

 

four?

 

Could it be possible that the grapplers during those were just better.

 

Such as, the Yankees won four World Series in a row, is ti that their form of Baseball was supirior, or that they were just better during those for seasons?

[TJS]

would cosider early up to about UFC 10

Could it be possible that the grapplers during those were just better

 

Not really, not looking at the Big picture..there were alot of succesful(in their own field) boxers/kickboxers/karateka/TKD'ers etc

 

Some of them won a few fight but most of the time the lost to "grapplers" and You see grapplers/wrestlers from all diffrent backgrounds walk in and almost always win atleast a few fight and ususally do very well

 

Royce Gracie-BJJ

 

Dan Severn-Greco roman wrestling

 

Oleg Taktarov-Sambo

 

Ken shamrock-shootinfighting

 

Remco Pardoe-Judo

 

All these guys had alot of succes with little or no cross training in "striking"

[wrestlingkaratechamp]

Grappling is better

[TJS]

Grappling is better

 

I wouldent say it's "better" But is definetly an overlooked aspect of alot of people...I think most people have an unrealistic picture of what they would do against a good grappler because they have never really tried it agaist one.

[JohnnyS]

I think Grappling only can get you through a MMA fight, whereas striking only can't.

 

Ideally though, a fighter needs both: Striking and grappling ( takedowns, ground-grappling)

[TJS]

I think Grappling only can get you through a MMA fight, whereas striking only can't.

 

Today you migh have a better chance with pure grappling but even today a pure grappler would get hurt in most cases atleast at the higher levels of competition.

[JohnnyS]

TJS, I agree. It was enough in the early days, but nowadays anyone entering MMA will at least work their takedown defenses if they're primarily a striker.