Is striking secondary to grappling?

[JeetKunDoGuy]

If UFC has taught us anything, it's that a skilled grappler who doesn't know striking will probably beat an equally skilled striker who doesn't know grappling 9 times out of 10...right? Even takedown defense is a form of grappling.

And this business I've always heard that "most" street fights end up on the ground...whoever came up with that IDK but makes sense I guess.

Keep in mind I am coming more from a self defense/street fight perspective. I have been studying striking arts my whole life, and just recently started grappling...I feel like such a newb and almost like I have been wasting time on perfecting my striking ability if I'm just gonna get grappled with anyways. I know MT has the clinch, but that is the only pure striking art I can think of that has something resembling grappling. Correct me if I am wrong.

So should we all just drop what we are doing and go join a judo/bjj/wrestling school? Is striking really that unreliable in a real fight?

 

[lts5025]

I've always thought if this as two-fold:

First, what if the person you're fighting is too strong/tough/high/Roy Nelsony too be stopped by strikes? Choke holds are a fail proof way to end a one on one altercation.

Second, while I don't think deliberately going to the ground in a street fight is the best idea, I think that we'd all agree that being on your back, unable to sweep or escape is the absolute worst place to be in a fight. So while you might not ever willingly go to the ground, you might trip or fall or get taken down. Training grappling prepares you for such a scenario.

 

[tkdyo]

Have to agree with Its. I dont think going to the ground on purpose in a street fight is a good idea, especially because you never know if he has buddies. However, it is still important to know in case you do fall.

I think looking at one being secondary to the other is to completely miss the point of martial arts. Both have their place in situations. For example, as we see in the ufc, having confidence in your ground game allows you to be more free and open with your striking, resulting in you getting hit much less than if you were to stay at close range (dirty boxing/clich/ground and pound if you get swept or taken down)

 

[SummerStriker]

JKDGuy, every fight I've seen go to the ground goes to the ground from damage. I've seen so many bar and club fights (my teacher and a bunch of his students are bouncers, and have always been) and no one ever ends up on the ground without being hit. When randoms in the clubs fight, it is always standing. When someone gets sucker punched, they get sucker punched, not sucker double legged.

It just never seems to happen.

There was one instance of a guy working at the club who snuck up on someone being thrown out and RNC'd him. That's 100% of the grappling that happened.

Go on youtube and do a head count of all the fight videos you can watch, and there are play lists. How many go to the ground out of them, and how many of those went to the ground from damage.

 

[Echo5O]

Why do you want there to be an absolute answer to this? There are too many questions to be answered. Siyar didn't need grappling against Paulo Thiago. Marquardt didn't need it against Maia. This can go either way, that is why we bother to watch the fights instead of just knowing who is going to win beforehand.

 

[MightySparrow]

If UFC has taught us anything, it's that a skilled grappler who doesn't know striking will probably beat an equally skilled striker who doesn't know grappling 9 times out of 10...right? Even takedown defense is a form of grappling.

And this business I've always heard that "most" street fights end up on the ground...whoever came up with that IDK but makes sense I guess.

Keep in mind I am coming more from a self defense/street fight perspective. I have been studying striking arts my whole life, and just recently started grappling...I feel like such a newb and almost like I have been wasting time on perfecting my striking ability if I'm just gonna get grappled with anyways. I know MT has the clinch, but that is the only pure striking art I can think of that has something resembling grappling. Correct me if I am wrong.

So should we all just drop what we are doing and go join a judo/bjj/wrestling school? Is striking really that unreliable in a real fight?

No, I wouldn't agree on that.

It's true that in a one on one fight, a grappler will have the edge over a striker more often than not. People have always wondered about this, so there are plenty of historical examples including early MMA as well as wrestler vs boxer matches etc. The reason is probably that it's easier to close the distance than to maintain it.

For self defense I believe that striking is more important than grappling, both because most attacks will be punches and you will want to be accustomed to that, and because you will benefit from a "non-committing" strategy that doesn't have you locked up in a wrestling match in case the assailant's friends and family join the scene. The English self defense guru Geoff Thompson once said that if he could learn one, two or three martial arts for self defense, he'd go with boxing, judo and MT, in that order. And I believe it makes some sense.

Good thing that you cross-train though, it's very wise to learn at least some grappling.

 

[Henry Huggins]

IMO rules favor grapplers

2 skilled grapplers (e.g. vinny and phil davis), best striker wins

good luck grappling in a street fight. if you grapple it's easy to be dirty (eye pokes, grabbing ears,etc..). if a guy tries to eye poke me or kick me in the balls standing, i'm going to see that shit coming

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

The only problem i had with OP is that it uses early UFC as example, which is for all intent and purpose an infomercial for Gracie Jiu Jitsu instead of what it tried to appeal.
As for my own opinion, it depends on situations and rulesets. There isn't really any definitive answer to it.

 

[Sinister]

The UFC taught me this? And all this time I didn't realize...

I do recall Dana White once saying that 98% of street fights always end up on the ground, but I also recall thinking "that's because 98% of people don't actually know how to throw punches very well."

 

[panamaican]

I don't think so. It's more like a cycle thing. Striking is first since most fights start on the feet. If it doesn't end there then it might end up on the ground. If you don't know how to ground fight then it ends there. Otherwise, it might end up back on the feet.

But the early UFC's didn't teach us anything about grappling vs. striking. It taught us that when grapplers who know about striking fight strikers who don't know about grappling...the grapplers win.

If the grapplers had never seen a punch or kick before who knows how that might have turned out.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Well, the whole point is that being a good striker is meaningless if you don't know how to keep the fight standing.

Being the best jiujitsu player in the world means nothing if you can't bring the fight to the ground.


This is why I laugh when people say the best strikers are pro boxers. The best strikers by definition must possess the ability to force the fight standing. If you can't do this, you aren't a striker, you're just a wrestler's lunch. You might think I'm crazy, but turn the example around. Can you really be considered the best ground fighter in the world if you lack the ability to bring the fight to the ground? Why should it be any different from fighting standing up?

 

[Eric Bradach]

The UFC taught me this? And all this time I didn't realize...

I do recall Dana White once saying that 98% of street fights always end up on the ground, but I also recall thinking "that's because 98% of people don't actually know how to throw punches very well."

My thoughts exactly. I'm not saying that I've seen every street fight but I've seen enough to know how they go and they normally don't go to the ground. Its usually just two guys throwing haymakers or grabbing the others shirt and punching with the other. Anytime it does go to the ground however its because they either A) fall to the ground because they don't know proper footwork and balance or B) fall to the ground from exhaustion. Never have I seen anyone go for a double leg takedown and try to put the other in an armbar or something.

 

[aries]

I think you need grappling defence because inevitably a grappler will get hands on you. But looking at the plethora of successful strikers who choose to stand up in MMA I'd say striking takes precedence. Anderson Silva, Jose Aldo, JDS,

For most grapplers they only need to change levels well to defend against strikes long enough to close the distance or some basic blocking techniques to enter into clinch range while minimising damage.

The problem is that once you are in grappling range it's hard to get out of if you don't know how to defend/escape properly. But we are seeing more and more guys who use their grappling purely defensively to stay on their feet, scramble back to their feet and shuck off their opponents grappling attacks.

It's quite clear that strikers who can avoid grappling can win consistently in MMA against grappling specialists.

 

[aries]

My thoughts exactly. I'm not saying that I've seen every street fight but I've seen enough to know how they go and they normally don't go to the ground. Its usually just two guys throwing haymakers or grabbing the others shirt and punching with the other. Anytime it does go to the ground however its because they either A) fall to the ground because they don't know proper footwork and balance or B) fall to the ground from exhaustion. Never have I seen anyone go for a double leg takedown and try to put the other in an armbar or something.

Couldn't agree more. Often it's losing balance or tripping over objects, bystanders e.t.c. The other big one is of course getting knocked down.

I think the most vital skill is to be able to scramble back to your feet quickly. We are seeing this in MMA too. Guys like Chuck made successful careers out of fighting this way.

 

[NAKMUAY18]

I always wondered how a RNC would go down while somebodys biting down on your arm.

Same with armbars and calfs, don't want to think about triangles!!

 

[a guy]

I think you need grappling defence because inevitably a grappler will get hands on you. But looking at the plethora of successful strikers who choose to stand up in MMA I'd say striking takes precedence. Anderson Silva, Jose Aldo, JDS,

For most grapplers they only need to change levels well to defend against strikes long enough to close the distance or some basic blocking techniques to enter into clinch range while minimising damage.

The problem is that once you are in grappling range it's hard to get out of if you don't know how to defend/escape properly. But we are seeing more and more guys who use their grappling purely defensively to stay on their feet, scramble back to their feet and shuck off their opponents grappling attacks.

It's quite clear that strikers who can avoid grappling can win consistently in MMA against grappling specialists.

Very good points. For a long time I believed that grapplers had an inherent advantage over strikers, but I'm coming to think that this advantage can be negated by training to strike differently against a grappler than against a striker, as well as working on escaping.

 

[Discipulus]

I always wondered how a RNC would go down while somebodys biting down on your arm.

Same with armbars and calfs, don't want to think about triangles!!

You can't really bite someone when you're in a triangle. And the whole "biting while in an arm bar" thing isn't really a concern. People talk about it like it's a real danger, but the moment I feel someone biting my leg through my jeans, I'm snapping their arm. RNC is probably the safest one, too. Especially because the classic set up is: gain mount, beat the shit out of dude on bottom, slip the choke on quickly when he turns away to defend himself. It's pretty fool proof once you have the grappling technique to pull it off, at least against someone with no training.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

If you let someone bit you while you are in a position to finish with a RNC, chances are you had a pretty shit RNC. Same goes with armbar or triangle.

 

[a guy]

I always wondered how a RNC would go down while somebodys biting down on your arm.

Same with armbars and calfs, don't want to think about triangles!!

In an RNC you can't bite anything, their arm will be under your chin. This would only work if you were being put in a rear naked neck crank (their forearm across your jaw). Once you're in one, you'd be better off trying to gouge the eyes or grabbing their big toe and trying to break it while you use it to peel off a hook.

Biting a calf during an armbar is the most likely to be successful, just know the guy trying to break your arm can also lift his heel and stomp your face in.

The only thing you'll be able to bite in a good triangle is your own arm, maybe. Your head should be immobilized and your own arm will be between your mouth and his dick. Just hope the guy choking you doesn't know how to underhook the leg to avoid the slam or sweep.

 

[bowlie]

The UFC taught me this? And all this time I didn't realize...

I do recall Dana White once saying that 98% of street fights always end up on the ground, but I also recall thinking "that's because 98% of people don't actually know how to throw punches very well."

Danas logic is stupid, beacuse when will a fight stop? Either the two people decide to break off and run, or one of them will take a lucky shot and go down in the most case.