aznkarateboi Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 anything that the striker can do ont eh ground, the grappler can do better due to positioning. you simply can't argue with that fact.
JohnnyS Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 The reason I asked those questions Warp, is because by doing as you described you leave yourself open to be choked and armbarred. A simple counter for what you descrive is for the person on the mount to just lock their arms straight on the ground and your technique is nullified. In other words, what you describe WON'T WORK ! BJJ - Black Belt under John Will (Machado)Shootfighting - 3rd Degree Black BeltTKD - Black Belt
Radok Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 I don't need to look at history, they are strikes no matter who uses them. Royce won because he was better at fighting than his opponants. And the bites, my point is people would not want to get in close as much, if they enjoy health. As for the throat shots, they may not be easy to land, but it is possible... and devastating. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
TJS Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 I don't need to look at history, they are strikes no matter who uses them. Royce won because he was better at fighting than his opponants. And the bites, my point is people would not want to get in close as much, if they enjoy health. As for the throat shots, they may not be easy to land, but it is possible... and devastating. yes Royce won becuase he exposed the weakness of most MA' Thus he was better at fighting his opponets. that the point. Dont tell me was was just "better" almost every single one of his opponets was considerably larger and stronger than him and plenty of them were champions in their own stlyes. Royce isint one of the best grapplers in the world either..they chose him because he was the "kid brother" and to show that even he could do it.
Radok Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 He won because he was better at fighting. If he was not better at fighting, he would have lost. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
1ONEfighting Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 Whoa. What a thread. Okay... Striking AND grappling are completely necessary if you EVER want to consider defending yourself on the street. You can be the hardest hitting chi flowing eyepoking son of a gun on earth, it still won't help you if someone decides to tackle you out of nowhere. You can be a BJJ Grandmaster and not see the right suckerpunch coming. Learn both striking AND grappling, because if you don't you better not get in a fight. This isn't 1993. It's been 10 years since the first UFC, and any open-minded martial artist worth his salt has at the very least crosstrained a little bit. There should be no distinction between striking and grappling, in my honest opinion. They both fall into one category, and that is FIGHTING. Consider yourself as an NFL team. Grappling=Defense, Striking=Offense. You have to have both in order to win. You can do alright with a strong one or the other, but if one is too weak you won't make it to the playoffs. Trainwreck Tiemeyerwishes he was R. Lee Ermey.
Radok Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 I agree that you should do both. I'm just trying to make the point that UFC favors grapplers, and so the ufc is not grounds to say grappling is better or diss striking styles or whatever. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
TJS Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 I agree that you should do both. I'm just trying to make the point that UFC favors grapplers, and so the ufc is not grounds to say grappling is better or diss striking styles or whatever. not it dosent if you werent closing you eyes to the facts you would see that.
1ONEfighting Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 There are a lot of subtle nuances in the UFC that also favor strikers. Gloves come to mind. Strikers don't break their hands nearly as often now. You can no longer wear a gi, or wrestling shoes. The rules in the UFC are not there to give an edge to strikers, or grapplers. Most of the rules are in place to appease the various state athletic commissions, and for the overall safety of the competitors. And over the course of the past few years, a number of striking oriented fighters have done increasingly well in the UFC and Pride. Mirko "Cro-Cop" Filopovic, Maurice Smith, Bas Rutten, Vitor Belfort, Wanderlei Silva, Chuck Liddell, etc. They would not have gotten nearly as far in their careers without knowledge of grappling and takedown defense. Trainwreck Tiemeyerwishes he was R. Lee Ermey.
TJS Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 good points 1 on one...everyone likes to ignore the small advantages the striker gets. There are plenty of strikers that do well today and you dont see them crying about how Strikers are at a disadvantage..you see them knocking people out.
Recommended Posts