Can anyone tell me who might be the best grappler in the world ?

[dza76wutang]

Awwwh, you feel better for that cupcake?

Most peope here are also ignorant of other grappling arts besides BJJ. I mean i bet some on here dont even know that Judo is more popular in Brazil than BJJ, am i right?

Talking about 'the best grappler in the world' but not taking into account the talent pool available to Judo or Freestyle wrestling is absurd.

I think you're undervaluing the power of submissions, and I also think some people are overvaluing them. It's not impossible, hell it's not even statistically unlikely that the Wrestlers and to a lesser extent the Judoka would get caught in things that they are just flat out not prepared for while they are doing their thing. A quick submission is usually good for a win as they can be done to a crippling extent. This is just an anecdote and it's not particularly compelling when we're discussing world champions but it was not particularly difficult for me to heelhook wrestlers after getting ragdolled on the feet; rending the knee would end the fight, as long as I wasn't injured or KO'd by the takedown. Attempting to extrapolate to the level of our discussion, I doubt anyone with a functional brain would presume the BJJ representative (Roger most likely) would start double legging and uchi-mata-ing the wrestlers and judoka, however, that IS NOT his specialty, his specialty is breaking arms, legs and strangles.

That said, I do NOT think it'd be a landslide and it would come down to who was best prepared for that day, and who the superior athlete is.

 

[Rod1]

I think you're undervaluing the power of submissions, and I also think some people are overvaluing them. It's not impossible, hell it's not even statistically unlikely that the Wrestlers and to a lesser extent the Judoka would get caught in things that they are just flat out not prepared

But that's giving an unfair advantage that has been exploited a lot in BJJ early shows, why does the BJJ guy knows exactly what the other guy is going to do but the wrestler is completely unaware of what the BJJ guy does?

If you made a dreamatch between prime Karelin and prime Roger, and Karelin didn't knew who Roger was, then yes, Roger may drop for some leg subs, but given even a week notice, Karelin would be able to learn the most basic defenses or bad positions.

So in the end the problem is the fact that most people still dont know what BJJ is, yet they all know what wrestling is.

for while they are doing their thing. A quick submission is usually good for a win as they can be done to a crippling extent.

And still they are helluva hard to pull against resisting opponents who have a much superior positional control (overall).

This is just an anecdote and it's not particularly compelling when we're discussing world champions but it was not particularly difficult for me to heelhook wrestlers after getting ragdolled on the feet; rending the knee would end the fight

In what scenario have you fought wrestlers and were able to pull a heelhook?

as long as I wasn't injured or KO'd by the takedown. Attempting to extrapolate to the level of our discussion, I doubt anyone with a functional brain would presume the BJJ representative (Roger most likely) would start double legging and uchi-mata-ing the wrestlers and judoka, however, that IS NOT his specialty, his specialty is breaking arms, legs and strangles.

On the ground, trying to pulldown someone like Karelin or Riner is outright impossible.

That said, I do NOT think it'd be a landslide and it would come down to who was best prepared for that day, and who the superior athlete is.

It all would depend on the rules and the area, so the best thing we can do its seeing how good certain athlete did against its level of competition, in that sense i doubt anyone can get near Karelin.

 

[dza76wutang]

But that's giving an unfair advantage that has been exploited a lot in BJJ early shows, why does the BJJ guy knows exactly what the other guy is going to do but the wrestler is completely unaware of what the BJJ guy does?

If you made a dreamatch between prime Karelin and prime Roger, and Karelin didn't knew who Roger was, then yes, Roger may drop for some leg subs, but given even a week notice, Karelin would be able to learn the most basic defenses or bad positions.

This is rather speculatory and presumptious. Yes the man is the greatest GR wrestler to walk the earth, however, GR is extremely limited as an art any way you slice it (not knocking it, but the list of moves IS narrow, let's be objective shall we?). Getting sufficiently competent to defend subs from Roger in a week is an exageration, but since we're talking about fantasy matches between juggernauts of grappling I'll take the hyperbole with a grain of salt. Black belts whose entire lives are BJJ get caught at the highest levels, so it's not quite that easy to shut down subs perfectly.

So in the end the problem is the fact that most people still dont know what BJJ is, yet they all know what wrestling is.
I don't think this is quite as bad as it once was, but I'm simply using subs as something the BJJer specializes in that the non BJJer may not be prepared for; the upside to a sub is that it is designed to cripple, whereas take downs are desiged to take down.


And still they are helluva hard to pull against resisting opponents who have a much superior positional control (overall).
While I think it's safe to assume that a wrestler is better at holding someone down, I don't know if the gap between their perceived hold down ability and the BJJers ability to squirm and ensnare a limb is as large as you claim. If that was the case, why wouldn't wrestlers with a chip on their shoulder invade BJJ tournies and squash the art?


In what scenario have you fought wrestlers and were able to pull a heelhook?
In house tournament, essentially the hardest you can roll against someone without a medal at stake. Sure this startling revelation might kill my anecdote, but I never presumed a perfect extrapolation.


On the ground, trying to pulldown someone like Karelin or Riner is outright impossible.
I don't question their athleticism or skill at all, but in the scenario they take someone down (most likely) they're still on the ground where the subs can happen. Unless they want to play take down and retreat in which case, they're not exactly grappling if you ask me.


It all would depend on the rules and the area, so the best thing we can do its seeing how good certain athlete did against its level of competition, in that sense i doubt anyone can get near Karelin.

I am going to take a wild guess here I'd assume wrestling has the most practitioners in the world, followed by Judo and then BJJ etc. Due to this, you can assume that the best wrestler beat out more people than the best BJJer, however, the games are not identical so the specialization needs appropriate weight in the equation/discussion. I was arguing that Jaxx' outright dismissal of BJJ was shortsighted because it's a grappling art that comes to the table with massive amounts of R&D in just flat out crippling someone, from bad positions no less. In fact I was leaning towards Karelin for this debate and I still am, however, the "lol bjj noobies" response needed to be addressed.

The rules, as you said, also will factor heavily into who would win. Infinite time, stop at concession seems to favor guys with subs. X minutes, points matter favors takedown and position guys.

This is an inherently flawed debate as a mutually agreeable rules set that allows all grappling arts to compete fairly* while showcasing their specializations would be borderline impossible so all we can do is say "my style is better cuz the best practitioner is/was this badass".

*I heard an urban legend of a master of crane kung fu challenging 2 Gracies to fight him on bamboo shoots sticking out of 2' of water. They declined and he took that as a moral victory, the funny part was the guy who told me it (a kung fu guy) actually drank up that KF kool-aid and that the Gracies were pussies -_- smh and wtf. This is bizarre but you can obviously see how a rules decision could completely negate a style.

 

[Ryo]

Judo is the most practiced grappling art in the world.

 

[dza76wutang]

Judo is the most practiced grappling art in the world.

Does that have wrestling split (folk, free, GR) or no? If it's true and it lumps all the wrestling together then just shuffle the words around in my last post, the point is the same, I knew wrestling and judo had more practitioners than BJJ which was my main point, wrestling vs judo is news to me.

 

[Jaxx]

I think you're undervaluing the power of submissions, and I also think some people are overvaluing them.

I not undervaluing submissions at all. Do you think that elite Judoka dont know any submissions? Sambo guys not very aware with leglocks?

That said, I do NOT think it'd be a landslide and it would come down to who was best prepared for that day, and who the superior athlete is.

Agreed.

 

[Rod1]

I am going to take a wild guess here I'd assume wrestling has the most practitioners in the world, followed by Judo and then BJJ etc. Due to this, you can assume that the best wrestler beat out more people than the best BJJer, however, the games are not identical so the specialization needs appropriate weight in the equation/discussion. I was arguing that Jaxx' outright dismissal of BJJ was shortsighted because it's a grappling art that comes to the table with massive amounts of R&D in just flat out crippling someone, from bad positions no less. In fact I was leaning towards Karelin for this debate and I still am, however, the "lol bjj noobies" response needed to be addressed

What? BJJ R&D was about winning 1 on 1 matches, jujutsu was designed to cripple since its origins. The fact that BJJ lacks a standup only shows how its a "watered down" version of an old martial art, just like judo, its nowadays a sport with its own specific ruleset. Stop drinking the koolaid of "wrestling and judo is for play and BJJ is fer the streetz"

The rules, as you said, also will factor heavily into who would win. Infinite time, stop at concession seems to favor guys with subs. X minutes, points matter favors takedown and position guys.

And mats favor BJJ guys, if you want to go old judo style anything goes grappling, then the matches ought to be on hardwood. Sorry but no matter how much blackbelts you have achieved in grappling, if you are slammed by Aleksander Karelin in hardwood floor, you are done.

This is an inherently flawed debate as a mutually agreeable rules set that allows all grappling arts to compete fairly* while showcasing their specializations would be borderline impossible so all we can do is say "my style is better cuz the best practitioner is/was this badass"

Exactly my point, therefore the more accomplishments in your specific sport and the level of competition should be factored.

If you talk about fair, then we would go back to more obscure times, basically UFC 1 with less rules and on hard floor.

*I heard an urban legend of a master of crane kung fu challenging 2 Gracies to fight him on bamboo shoots sticking out of 2' of water. They declined and he took that as a moral victory, the funny part was the guy who told me it (a kung fu guy) actually drank up that KF kool-aid and that the Gracies were pussies -_- smh and wtf. This is bizarre but you can obviously see how a rules decision could completely negate a style.

Ok, lets put the rules down, old jujutsu dojo, no striking only defeat by submission, hardwood floor.

The fact that wrestlers are winning MMA just shows that BJJ is a sport that lives by its rules, just like every other sport out there. It works in its enviroment because on soft mats with no striking, and no points, all fights will end on the ground. But when facing matches that can be ended outside of the ground like MMA matches deficiencies come out.

 

[Rod1]

This is rather speculatory and presumptious. Yes the man is the greatest GR wrestler to walk the earth, however, GR is extremely limited as an art any way you slice it (not knocking it, but the list of moves IS narrow, let's be objective shall we?).

Complexity =/= efficiency, with that thinking in mind then kung fu > all striking

Getting sufficiently competent to defend subs from Roger in a week is an exageration, but since we're talking about fantasy matches between juggernauts of grappling I'll take the hyperbole with a grain of salt. Black belts whose entire lives are BJJ get caught at the highest levels, so it's not quite that easy to shut down subs perfectly.

Black belts who willingly engage on the ground. Karelin or Riner wouldn't jump into the ground.

I don't think this is quite as bad as it once was, but I'm simply using subs as something the BJJer specializes in that the non BJJer may not be prepared for; the upside to a sub is that it is designed to cripple, whereas take downs are desiged to take down.

Its quite different trying to sub against someone trying to sub you back, and someone who doesnt wants to be on the ground.

While I think it's safe to assume that a wrestler is better at holding someone down, I don't know if the gap between their perceived hold down ability and the BJJers ability to squirm and ensnare a limb is as large as you claim. If that was the case, why wouldn't wrestlers with a chip on their shoulder invade BJJ tournies and squash the art?

When i said overall i meant both standing and on the ground, its quite different holding guard against someone who is trying to pass, than someone trying to stand up.

In house tournament, essentially the hardest you can roll against someone without a medal at stake. Sure this startling revelation might kill my anecdote, but I never presumed a perfect extrapolation.

What rules?

I don't question their athleticism or skill at all, but in the scenario they take someone down (most likely) they're still on the ground where the subs can happen. Unless they want to play take down and retreat in which case, they're not exactly grappling if you ask me.

They dont need to go to the ground when taking down, and why is not taking down and retreat grappling?

 

[dza76wutang]

What? BJJ R&D was about winning 1 on 1 matches, jujutsu was designed to cripple since its origins. The fact that BJJ lacks a standup only shows how its a "watered down" version of an old martial art, just like judo, its nowadays a sport with its own specific ruleset. Stop drinking the koolaid of "wrestling and judo is for play and BJJ is fer the streetz"

*Sigh* I am trying to have an objective and intelligent discussion. This is counter productive. If you asked people what BJJ does, they'd most certainly mention submissions, not stall for points. BJJ is about submissions and submissions destroy limbs. I am simplifying things a bit, but if you're going to attempt to argue that the foundation/specialty of BJJ is not submissions we are going to be deadlocked. The fact that I agree with you re: Karelin and you accuse me of drinking the proverbial kool-aid regarding street fighting shows either a lack in reading comprehension or a deficiency in maturity. I don't think it's even debatable that BJJ brings submissions to the mix, submissions cripple; wrestling does NOT bring submissions to the table and slams/throws while more than capable of ending a match are not engineered to destroy things. I'm of the opinion that in the abstract, the guys with subs are at an advantage over guys without them; and the BJJ guys, after devoting their lives to submission mastery, are probably the best submission guys. However, this does NOT incorporate the rest of what goes into a grappling match. Therefore blindly dismissing non-BJJ arts is foolish, and I'm not committing such a faux pas.


And mats favor BJJ guys, if you want to go old judo style anything goes grappling, then the matches ought to be on hardwood. Sorry but no matter how much blackbelts you have achieved in grappling, if you are slammed by Aleksander Karelin in hardwood floor, you are done.
Likewise letting Roger ensnare your arm, Igor Yakimov (only famous Sambist I know) leg-lace you or Riner throw you (on hardwood) and you're done. This is somewhat pointless since it can be distilled to "let specialist X do his specialty to you and you'll lose, especially if other variables are set to amplify damage". Regarding the hardwood floor; that might be how things once were done, but now everybody uses a mat (cue someone throwing an exception) and I doubt you'd have many eager participants signing up for a world grappling tournament on wooden floors regardless of specialty. Also, I am not positive but I think that Judo on hardwood thing was an urban legend and not actually how they practiced. However, I'll also allow myself one asinine comment here and say that if the match was on hardwoods, what stops the BJJ representative from just sitting down a la Marcelo Garcia? That negates the power of takedowns/slams/throws for the most part.



Exactly my point, therefore the more accomplishments in your specific sport and the level of competition should be factored.
I proposed this be given weight, as should rules, venue, respective athleticism and preparation for the hypothetical tournament, hence I have Karelin as my number one pick, however it won't be a walk in the park, in my opinion. For all we know there is a Turkish Oil Wrestler that would mop the floor with all of these guys on that given day, 100% certainty is impossible as there's just too many variables. When I say Karelin is my favorite pick, I'm talking like 55:45 maybe 60:40 tops, you make it sound like he'd be 98:2.

If you talk about fair, then we would go back to more obscure times, basically UFC 1 with less rules and on hard floor.
I'd argue that hardwood is unfair as it gives throwers and slammers an edge over submission guys, it also creates an injury risk that I'm sure most of these guys would deem excessive. Also referencing the old UFCs to try to prove that BJJ is weak is kind of ironic, just wanted to point that out. See: Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn.


Ok, lets put the rules down, old jujutsu dojo, no striking only defeat by submission, hardwood floor.
I'm faily confident the hardwood scenario would get shot down by the vast majority of participants but lets say it is used; BJJ representative sits guard the second the match begins, what happens next? They stare at each other? Oh and before you say "Karelin just does his lift and wins via epic KO" the lift was facilitated by par terre AND his opponents' efforts to keep their backs and shoulders off the mat. Sure he's strong as hell, but there is no par terre here to let him get that nice body lock.

The fact that wrestlers are winning MMA just shows that BJJ is a sport that lives by its rules, just like every other sport out there. It works in its enviroment because on soft mats with no striking, and no points, all fights will end on the ground. But when facing matches that can be ended outside of the ground like MMA matches deficiencies come out.
This is a red herring, you can't win in MMA without training BJJ so there are no pure wrestlers having all of this success you speak of. Also, to use your own logic against you, the rules of MMA favor wrestlers. No grounded strikes and double-dipping on points for take downs make wrestling much more successful in the cage than it would normally be (the scoring is subjective but the fact that you can't sprawl and knee/soccer kick a failed shooter definitely removes risk from shooting and reshooting until you finally get the TD). I'd also like to point out Sonnen and Lesnar's recent losses as evidence that pure wrestling does not, in fact, guarantee success.

My replies are above.

 

[pjmeunyc12]

best grappler on the planet is easy, hands down, no discussion, fuck off, LOL.

Buvaisar Saitiev

 

[dza76wutang]

Complexity =/= efficiency, with that thinking in mind then kung fu > all striking
I am not arguing the complexity makes BJJ better, I'm arguing having more ways to attack and being used to defending more paths of attack is an advantage. GR doesn't even allow single/double leg style attacks, it is very narrow, and yes I am asserting that its narrowness is a disadvantage. I'm not saying it sucks, I'm saying that its singlemindedness would be a hindrance when the opposition has been training without such constraints from day one. Kung Fu vs all striking is a bad argument, lets try Muay Thai versus Boxing. Do you see where the MT fighter's kicks might be advantageous since the Boxer would be unused to dealing with them?




Black belts who willingly engage on the ground. Karelin or Riner wouldn't jump into the ground.
Conversely a BJJer who can sit guard and work off his butt won't have to jump into a stand up battle with the Judoka and Wrestler. We end up with 2 of the baddest men on the planet in a staring contest.



Its quite different trying to sub against someone trying to sub you back, and someone who doesnt wants to be on the ground.
Yes, certainly, but did you not call for wins to be by submission only?



When i said overall i meant both standing and on the ground, its quite different holding guard against someone who is trying to pass, than someone trying to stand up.
Yea but again the competition has to end somehow, you proposed infinite time win by sub, so barring a KO via slam/throw there will be some ground fighting.


What rules?
NAGA style rules, and before you say anything yes if I grappled a wrestler in wrestling I'd lose by pinfall rather quickly, but then I'm neither doing BJJ nor allowed to leglock him when I find his foot. Also IF we were on hardwoods I'd sit down and force him to either wade into my guard or stare at me.


They dont need to go to the ground when taking down, and why is not taking down and retreat grappling?
I may have mispoken here. It is a form of grappling, but it's not really proving who is better at grappling it shows who's got take down skills.

again in red.

 

[Team Sleep]

Rubens Charles.

 

[Rod1]

*Sigh* I am trying to have an objective and intelligent discussion. This is counter productive. If you asked people what BJJ does, they'd most certainly mention submissions, not stall for points. BJJ is about submissions and submissions destroy limbs.

Submissions IN the ground.

I am simplifying things a bit, but if you're going to attempt to argue that the foundation/specialty of BJJ is not submissions we are going to be deadlocked. The fact that I agree with you re: Karelin and you accuse me of drinking the proverbial kool-aid regarding street fighting shows either a lack in reading comprehension or a deficiency in maturity. I don't think it's even debatable that BJJ brings submissions to the mix, submissions cripple; wrestling does NOT bring submissions to the table and slams/throws while more than capable of ending a match are not engineered to destroy things.

Sorry but takedowns were designed to kill people, if you are down in a battlefield you get trampled or killed, that's why there was so much emphasiz in wrestling in all militaries, locks and chokes came more from the sportive side like the ancient olympics or in japan where there was dueling.

I'm of the opinion that in the abstract, the guys with subs are at an advantage over guys without them; and the BJJ guys, after devoting their lives to submission mastery, are probably the best submission guys. However, this does NOT incorporate the rest of what goes into a grappling match. Therefore blindly dismissing non-BJJ arts is foolish, and I'm not committing such a faux pas.

And im of the opinion that i rather have 10 men here than 10,000 abroad, meaning that it doesnt matter how much you are subbing guys IN the ground, if you cant take the fight there you are useless.

Likewise letting Roger ensnare your arm, Igor Yakimov (only famous Sambist I know) leg-lace you or Riner throw you (on hardwood) and you're done. This is somewhat pointless since it can be distilled to "let specialist X do his specialty to you and you'll lose, especially if other variables are set to amplify damage".

No, its not pointless because ALL fights everywhere, start standing, that's the problem with modern BJJ and that's why i consider it a watered down art, just like judo.

Originally BJJ had emphasis in throws too, because they were used to fight valetudo matches, and they had to take people down to work, nowadays its assumed that all fights will end there, so training that aspect is pointless.

Regarding the hardwood floor; that might be how things once were done, but now everybody uses a mat (cue someone throwing an exception) and I doubt you'd have many eager participants signing up for a world grappling tournament on wooden floors regardless of specialty.

We are trying to point out a "fair" ruleset, i dont think its possible, but you are the one that brought the argument that since BJJ is for crippling and judo and wrestling is for play, then BJJ accomplishments should be more important

Also, I am not positive but I think that Judo on hardwood thing was an urban legend and not actually how they practiced.

Yes we all know that Zebra mats was official sponsor of the kodokan, judo was practiced in rice mats, which were hard but not hardwood.

I was talking about tournaments, the first tokyo police tournament was done in a hall of wooden floor.

However, I'll also allow myself one asinine comment here and say that if the match was on hardwoods, what stops the BJJ representative from just sitting down a la Marcelo Garcia? That negates the power of takedowns/slams/throws for the most part.

Nothing, thats why in the second tournament it was won by representatives of Fusen ryu by laying on their backs with their legs open (butt scooting).

I proposed this be given weight, as should rules, venue, respective athleticism and preparation for the hypothetical tournament, hence I have Karelin as my number one pick, however it won't be a walk in the park, in my opinion. For all we know there is a Turkish Oil Wrestler that would mop the floor with all of these guys on that given day, 100% certainty is impossible as there's just too many variables. When I say Karelin is my favorite pick, I'm talking like 55:45 maybe 60:40 tops, you make it sound like he'd be 98:2.

No, im just saying that the achievements of Karelin in greco beats the achievements of anybody in their respective art.

I dont think there is any possible fair comparison, or an hypotethical tournament that would be fair, im simply denying your point that "BJJ is fo real".

I'd argue that hardwood is unfair as it gives throwers and slammers an edge over submission guys, it also creates an injury risk that I'm sure most of these guys would deem excessive. Also referencing the old UFCs to try to prove that BJJ is weak is kind of ironic, just wanted to point that out. See: Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn.

You are the one who said that takedowns are for play, im just pointing out why wrestling and judo give emphasis to throwing/pinning, its because of the martial art origin of the arts.

I'm faily confident the hardwood scenario would get shot down by the vast majority of participants but lets say it is used;

So if a BJJ guy refuses to partake into a grappling match without soft pads its because its barbaric but if a wrestler refuses to partake into a match where you can break limbs he is a wuss? talk about double standards, takedowns were used to kill or defeat people, the reason they dont is because they are sport now and you cant tap to gravity so we have soft mats now.

Thats like saying that if rules allowed for submissions but breaking a limb was made illegal, then people wouldnt tap, and since breaking is illegal submissions would be useless.

BJJ representative sits guard the second the match begins, what happens next? They stare at each other? Oh and before you say "Karelin just does his lift and wins via epic KO" the lift was facilitated by par terre AND his opponents' efforts to keep their backs and shoulders off the mat. Sure he's strong as hell, but there is no par terre here to let him get that nice body lock.

Nothing, either the wrestler engages and gets tangled or he doesnt

This is a red herring, you can't win in MMA without training BJJ so there are no pure wrestlers having all of this success you speak of.

Training how to defend against something = training something. You can win MMA without learning a single submission. In that case then Mirko Crocop is a wrestler because he sprawls.

Also, to use your own logic against you, the rules of MMA favor wrestlers. No grounded strikes and double-dipping on points for take downs make wrestling much more successful in the cage than it would normally be (the scoring is subjective but the fact that you can't sprawl and knee/soccer kick a failed shooter definitely removes risk from shooting and reshooting until you finally get the TD).

So if you sprawl then you are wrestling and therefore you are a wrestler isnt?

Also while wrestler need to learn submissions defense they dont need to learn submission offense, they dont need to learn really anything past the guard game, they already know how to attain positions, they just need to know the submissions to avoid getting caught with "tricks".

On the other hand the BJJ guy needs to learn wrestling ENTIRELY because they need to take the fight to the ground that means learning takedowns.

I'd also like to poit out Sonnen and Lesnar's recent losses as evidence that pure wrestling does not, in fact, guarantee success.

Lesnar lost against a wrestler and Sonnen is afraid of training bjj.

 

[RacerX]

best grappler on the planet is easy, hands down, no discussion, fuck off, LOL.

Buvaisar Saitiev

Yeah. Roger is great, but BJJ is a small sport compared with Judo and wrestling. A guy who can dominate in wrestling like that is amazing.

And BJJ is not better because it has submissions. Wrestling demonstrates who can control their opponent. BJJ is great, but banning a lot of finishing techniques to test who has the better control is valid also. This goes to the rules and the hard floor thing. BJJ players are protected against techniques just like everyone else in their own sports.

Again, Buvaisar Saitiev is the best.

Here's a highlight: YouTube - Buvaisar Saitiev Highlight

BTW, this thread would be easier on everyone if it were "...most dominant grappler in the world".

 

[fourfif**]

best grappler on the planet is easy, hands down, no discussion, fuck off, LOL.

Buvaisar Saitiev

here here.

 

[armtriangle]

I can agree that Satiev or Karelin are more dominant in their respective sports than Roger is in his sport. And even that the talent pool in wrestling is deeper than bjj.

But if the question is "who would win a no points no time limit submission match?" (which I am pretty sure that was the question)- Satiev would be sleeping like a baby inside 60 seconds against Roger.

As for cross training with takedowns, you guys realize that takedowns are a part of bjj too right? Roger has some pretty good judo. He obviously can't take down Satiev, but he is sure as hell a lot better at takedowns than Satiev is at submissions/sub defense.

So I guess the issue is what are we arguing? If we are arguing who is the "greatest" grappler- you are probably going with Satiev. If you are arguing who would win a grappling match to a tap or unconsciousness, it is clearly Roger.

 

[pjmeunyc12]

I wasn't aware that it was a no time limit sub match, if thats the case then of course roger would win bc the end result is a submission. I thought the TS meant it was a fight on the street. Satiev all day in a street fight.

 

[knoxpk]

Yes if you are saying who is the best sub grappler in the world, it would have to be Roger. Sub grappling and grappling are not always the same thing.


Also there was a point made earlier that is very interesting. Does control demonstrate dominance?

Lets assume you are not allowed to finish a fight via strikes or submissions, does the fact that even though I cannot nor will not hurt you yet I can STILL dominate you mean anything?

Think about that for a moment. Certainly Sub grappling styles are designed to and are very effective at finishing a fight. That said, you can be getting spanked badly yet still win.

The fact that someone can put you in a place you dont want to be and keep you there despite your best efforts is impressive in and of itself, especially when they are not going to strangle you or break something to make that happen.

Listen to have a no style unlimited time fantasy grappling match would be pointless.

Who is the better grappler?

The guy that cannot hurt me because he cant get me down?

Or the guy that wont come to the floor because he is unskilled in submissions?

It's a wash. Grappling is not all about the floor. Its about getting it to the floor or staying off the floor, its about escaping if put on the floor, its about holding someone on the floor that does not want to be there and finally its about finishing on the floor.

There is ALOT of elements to grappling and by making it just a submission on the floor criteria you are limiting it to just submission grapplers.

 

[206warrior]

 

[armtriangle]

I wasn't aware that it was a no time limit sub match, if thats the case then of course roger would win bc the end result is a submission. I thought the TS meant it was a fight on the street. Satiev all day in a street fight.

If we are changing it to an all out fight, you still have to go with the guy that has some striking experience. Roger has fought several times in MMA, including some wrestlers. He can strike a little. Satiev would have one chance, to throw him on his head, if Roger did not die from the throw, he would be subbed pretty quickly. People over estimate the damage a takedown does on the street IMO, especially against a guy who knows takedowns and is not going to fight it. A lot of being thrown hard is the other guy resisting the throw. Roger goes down willingly with anyone who wants to go down.

It is a dumb argument, it is pure conjecture... but my money would be on Roger, who I think would sub any white belt (including Satiev) in under a minute. It is like arguing about an untrained boxer beating a wrestler... sure they can catch them coming in, it sounds like it would be easy, just punch when they shoot... but the reality is that it is hard as hell to catch a guy coming in and knock him out. Same thing with a big gnarly takedown. If everything went perfectly and Roger played along, sure he could throw him on his head a kill him... but most likely, it will be ugly, Roger will just flop down and grab or maybe go tumbling down but not get KO'd and what follows is a chain of events that leads to wrestler sleeping on the ground.

No one has to agree... but until someone subs him (no one ever has btw, even the guys that beat him have not subbed him), Roger is the king of old school fantasy to the death matches for me.