In my personal experience, I was lucky enough to seemingly be born for fighting. Before MMA, I never lost a fight, and needless to say haven't since I trained, either. Neither came easier than the other, though I do seem to be better at grappling. Striking seems easiest for people to learn and adapt to, even those who insist on training yet were obviously never meant to fight. Grappling isn't necessarily harder, especially considering there's a good number of people where grappling comes easiest, it can just be trickier, due to the intricacy of it all. In striking the best master angles, counters (pre-emptive, simultaneous, and follow-ups), flow (timing, footwork, rhythm, tempo, spatial recognition), and develop a toolkit that aside from seeming endless, is actually specialized to their frame.
The best grapplers have to master the ins and outs, while building a move set that is specialized towards their strengths, but also has to cover up any weaknesses. They need sweeps, scrambles, the ability to chain submissions, etc. Even if you're lucky to have an affinity for both like myself, I still need to build my number of sweeps that aren't also submissions, and be able to have more than just endless submission chaining as my trump card. Striking I simply need to not always be willing for the pace to change, I should dictate the pace instead of my opponent dictating at what speed they lose, some say I shouldn't throw sambo punches which makes me feel I should just throw them less, knowing their purpose, not that I throw them often.
I'd say it takes longer to master grappling, than it is striking. It's easier for a grappler to become proficient at striking, and even master striking. Especially if we're talking about a normal person and not someone who is naturally inclined towards the opposite art.
. You just have to read closely and seperate the wheat from the chaff. Also, learning who is who is a good thing if you paln in sticking around.
