Grappling arts vs Striking Arts

[TJS]

Yes that was supposed to be "Cant". What im getting at is If they are on top of him he is going to be in no position to do that unless that are laying on top of him like alimp noodle not doing anything. his theory is unrealstic at best and lacks any reality.

[SBN Doug]

I would have to agree IF he's picturing the same senario in his mind as he's envisioning the head grab/slam. I just can't be sure, until he tells us, that he didn't mean when you're side by side, kneeling, leaning over to grab from standing, etc.

[Warp Spider]

A) when you are mounted you cant reach the back of their head if they are sitting up

Maybe YOU can't. The only position I find that I'm more or less helpless is is when I'm laying face down with the other person kneeling on my back. Other than that, if they are out of reach of your hands, use your feet. That is assuming that you have full coordination with your legs.

B) they are in a much better position to repeatedly bash You head into the ground along with alot of other things.

I disagree with that. From laying on the ground, they would be unable to approach your face with their hands without entering the area where they would be bitten. I've broken people's fingers by biting when they went for my head. It's not wise to do so unless you can reach around and approach from behind, which you can't do obviously if their head is on the ground.

He has yet to answer any questions seriously or back up any of his claims.

Back up my claims? You can only back up your claims with MMA matches, which aren't applicable anyway because the circumstances are different.

 

 

At your disposal you have all of the items you mentioned; spray bottle, statues, bookends, etc. Please tell me what is to stop your attacker from using them on YOU while they have you mounted? You see the fallacy there? It's called a false dillema because there is a flipside to the scenerio you painted that could be just as much of an advantage to your opponent as it is to you.

 

That's not the case. Using those would generally involve striking, and that wouldn't make it grappling vs. striking, it would instead be grappling and striking versus striking. Obviously an assault rifle with a grenade launcher attached is more useful than just an assault rifle, but in a comparison of assault rifle vs. grenade launcher you can't really claim that they could use the assault rifle (grappling in this instance) and THEN the grenade launcher (striking) when it becomes convenient.

[aznkarateboi]

And since when is being down a disadvantage for a striker?

 

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this forum. I want you to try something. Get a grappler to sit on you while you're lying on the ground (this is most likely the position you would be in if you fought a grappler). Tell him to curl his hands into fists and begin to punch your head. While he's doing that, try to bite his fingers (and get your teeth knocked out) and try reaching up, grabbing his head, and pushing it down (while your head is being repeatedly bashed against the concrete by his puneches).

[aznkarateboi]

By the way warpspider about your last comment, do you think that a grappler would limit himself to grappling if he had an opportunity for a devastating strike? no, he'll see the random deadly weapon and think "i could use that, but im a grappler so i don't know how to hit someone with it"

[goshinman]

That's not the case. Using those would generally involve striking, and that wouldn't make it grappling vs. striking, it would instead be grappling and striking versus striking. Obviously an assault rifle with a grenade launcher attached is more useful than just an assault rifle, but in a comparison of assault rifle vs. grenade launcher you can't really claim that they could use the assault rifle (grappling in this instance) and THEN the grenade launcher (striking) when it becomes convenient.

 

........ HUH?

 

Ok so your saying that in the middle of the fight if the grappler reaches for the bottle of spray to spay in your eyes that you will stop him by saying;" hey man you can't use that, you're a grappler and that would be like using a grenade launcher with an assault rifle... NO FAIR!!"

 

I guess I had better stop my weapons training then since as a grappler I can't use them

 

No seriously dude I study JAPANESE jujutsu and improvised weapons are a part of the curriculam. But for the sake of argument lets play by your rules, please explain to me why you think a spray bottle is tanamount to striking? And also lets say I have you pinned down and I bite YOU, is that a strike too?

[Warp Spider]

By the way warpspider about your last comment, do you think that a grappler would limit himself to grappling if he had an opportunity for a devastating strike? no, he'll see the random deadly weapon and think "i could use that, but im a grappler so i don't know how to hit someone with it"

 

I never said that they couldn't use it in fight, but there you're making it unfair: the grappler is allowed to grapple AND strike, while the striker is allowed purely striking? Obviously grappling and striking would be better than just striking, but if we're going to assume that the grappler knows at least some striking, then it's only fair to assume that the striker knows some grappling as well.

[aznkarateboi]

the striker is allowed to do wutever grappling he knows (which usually isnt a lot considering strikers only train striking). it doesnt take training to know how to bash somebody with a weapon. striking can be improvised, grappling can't. this also gives the grappler an advantage because he has a small chance in the strikers' element while the striker has none while grappling

[TJS]

Warp-

 

There is a diffrence between a Grappler raining down punches on your head and a striker knowing how to arm bar someone or reverse them...one takes skill and technigue...punching someones head from a top positon does not require much technique to be effective.

Maybe YOU can't

 

Unless you are fighitng a midget or a 6 year old you will not have the same reach they do. Your showing your lack of experience again. If i have the mount on someone and i sit up not only can i punch them in the head but they cant even reach my chin in most cases and they certainly dont have the leverage to reach behind my head and pull it down.

if they are out of reach of your hands, use your feet. That is assuming that you have full coordination with your legs.

 

Nope legs/feet arent going to do you any good from a mount position.

they would be unable to approach your face with their hands without entering the area where they would be bitten

 

If they were a complete moron who attempted to cover your mouth and slowly guide your head down instead of just spiking it into the ground like any intelligent person would do.

Back up my claims? You can only back up your claims with MMA matches, which aren't applicable anyway because the circumstances are different.

 

See the burden of proof is on you, you are the one saying they favor grapplers yet have not produced a single Solid reason why.

[SBN Doug]

Warp, this is not meant as an attack, just seeking clarification on your terminology knowledge. When TJS is talking about the "mount" position, are you familiar with "exactly" what position that is?

Unless you are fighitng a midget or a 6 year old you will not have the same reach they do. If i have the mount on someone and i sit up not only can i punch them in the head but they cant even reach my chin in most cases and they certainly dont have the leverage to reach behind my head and pull it down.

 

The part about the reach is correct, but I haven't met the experienced grappler yet that would give up a chest to chest mount in order to sit up and punch. All the one's I've trained with that did were easily thrown off to the side, because of the rise in their center of gravity.

 

The ones that were able to get me in a mount, and stayed low, were able to beat me to position most of the time.