Who has it easier, strikers or grapplers?

TheRassler said:
Wrasslers, especially when all the rules favors them.
Click to expand...

I never understood the whole "all the rules favor wrestlers" argument. Rounds, stand ups, gloves, and head butts being illegal all favor strikers. I agree the scoring system favors wrestlers as does the cage, but the rules themselves have been extremely striker friendly.
 
standupguru said:
Not everyone can become a great striker. It takes speed power and technique. So strikers
Click to expand...

Not everyone can become a great grappler either. There are VERY few really good grapplers that started out as strikers. Especially when it comes to wrestling. Most good wrestlers started as kids and had successful collegiate careers before starting MMA. There are always exceptions such as GSP, but overall I'd say that good wrestlers have the easiest transition to MMA because they are already so good at positional dominance and control.
 
TheRassler said:
are you serious? you actually brought up stand ups and clinch breaks? and headbutts?!?! rofl.

a wrestler can shoot for a million takedowns and not pay any consequences of having 12-6 elbows raining down on them, they also have the back of the head rule to protect them so fighters can't punch/elbow them while they have their face down hugging the leg, they also have the 3 point rule to protect them so fighter's can't knee them or kick them, they have a dozen other rules to protect them so they are allowed to hang onto a single or double leg all day and they'll be in the safest place in the fight. The rules takes away all the damaging blows to stop a takedown. And once they get the takedown, the fighter on the bottom isn't even allowed to upkick them due to the "downed opponent" rule, lmaoo!!! this shit is a complete joke.
Click to expand...

The back of the head rule was created to stop the top guy from hitting the bottom guy when they're on the ground. That rule specifically hinders wrestlers.
 
Easily wrestlers...you see a heap of solid amatuer wrestlers have great success. There are very few crossover boxers/kickboxers who have made the switch or tried there hand at mma. A better wrestler can dictate which fight the fight can take place and hold dominant positions, where a better striker still has a lot of risk and takes a lot of damage.
 
cheesus said:
Easily wrestlers...you see a heap of solid amatuer wrestlers have great success. There are very few crossover boxers/kickboxers who have made the switch or tried there hand at mma. A better wrestler can dictate which fight the fight can take place and hold dominant positions, where a better striker still has a lot of risk and takes a lot of damage.
Click to expand...

If more elite Kickboxers and Boxers came to MMA it would be different. Especially if elite Boxers transitioned to MMA.
 
Getting back on topic: I think it's important to make the distinction between Wrestlers and BJJ guys. It seems like Wrestlers can more easily develop a "sprawl and brawl" style of striking that relies mainly on power punching whereas BJJ guys seem develop a more technical style. That could be because BJJ guys like Diaz and Werdum don't really care if they get taken down.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
I never understood the whole "all the rules favor wrestlers" argument. Rounds, stand ups, gloves, and head butts being illegal all favor strikers. I agree the scoring system favors wrestlers as does the cage, but the rules themselves have been extremely striker friendly.
Click to expand...

Those are very good points. I think that a lot of people say that because a wrestler can LnP their way to a victory w/out doing any real damage and it's very annoying to watch. At the end of the day the wrestler deserves the W in that situation because they are in control. When a striker wins via strikes it's way more exciting so people complain that the rules favor wrestlers.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
Getting back on topic: I think it's important to make the distinction between Wrestlers and BJJ guys. It seems like Wrestlers can more easily develop a "sprawl and brawl" style of striking that relies mainly on power punching whereas BJJ guys seem develop a more technical style. That could be because BJJ guys like Diaz and Werdum don't really care if they get taken down.
Click to expand...

Wrestlers are generally more athletic than BJJ practitioners also I agree with what you said.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
The back of the head rule was created to stop the top guy from hitting the bottom guy when they're on the ground. That rule specifically hinders wrestlers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it prevents the top guy from hitting the bottom guy, the bottom guy being the wrestler hanging onto a single/double leg and the top guy being the guy defending the takedown.
 
TheRassler said:
Exactly, it prevents the top guy from hitting the bottom guy, the bottom guy being the wrestler hanging onto a single/double leg and the top guy being the guy defending the takedown.
Click to expand...

The bottom guy being the Wrestler? Are you serious? It was meant to protect someone who had given up their back when on the bottom on the ground. It would be really hard to get a good power shot to the back of someone's head who shot in for a takedown.

I agree that the "knees to a downed opponent" protects Wrestlers when they shoot for a take down, but it also takes away one of their biggest weapons on the ground since they can no longer knee to head when they have an opponent in North South or in Side Control.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
The back of the head rule was created to stop the top guy from hitting the bottom guy when they're on the ground. That rule specifically hinders wrestlers.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for the claim that "the back of the head rule was created to stop the top guy from hitting the bottom guy when they're on the ground"? That rule is in place for the sole purpose of safety. Rabbit punches can come from the top, the bottom, during scrambles, or on the feet. It's illegal in all of these scenarios and doesn't favor any specific fighting style.
 
hypologic said:
Can you provide a source for the claim that "the back of the head rule was created to stop the top guy from hitting the bottom guy when they're on the ground"? That rule is in place for the sole purpose of safety. Rabbit punches can come from the top, the bottom, during scrambles, or on the feet. It's illegal in all of these scenarios and doesn't favor any specific fighting style.
Click to expand...

The rule is applied the most when fighter A has fighter B's back and is ground and pounding. If you've seen any of the early UFC's then you know that GnP used to be WAY more brutal before the advent of the current safety rules.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
The bottom guy being the Wrestler? Are you serious? It was meant to protect someone who had given up their back when on the bottom on the ground. It would be really hard to get a good power shot to the back of someone's head who shot in for a takedown.
Click to expand...

No, that's where you're wrong. It was meant to protect the wrestler shooting a takedown while hanging onto a single/double leg without getting punished from the guy defending the takedown.

and you're wrong again about it being really hard to get a good power shot to the back of someone's head who was shooting for a takedown. It gives wrestlers the advantage by constantly shooting for takedowns over and over and over again without the threat of getting cracked in the back of the head. Instead of picking their shots for a takedown, a one-dimensional wrestler can constantly go for failed takedown after failed takedown with nothing to hold them back. And the ridiculous part is..... if time runs out, they'd end up winning the fight!
 
I think some people would be surprised by what an elite Boxer with cross-training can do in MMA.
 
I think that for the purposes of this thread, "grappler" is too broad a term. Wrestlers have shown their grappling to be a dominant force in MMA, but with few exceptions, even the top BJJ guys don't dominate with their style of grappling.
 
Hanoi Rox said:
The rule is applied the most when fighter A has fighter B's back and is ground and pounding. If you've seen any of the early UFC's then you know that GnP used to be WAY more brutal before the advent of the current safety rules.
Click to expand...

In other words you don't have a source and you're talking out of your ass. I've seen all of the early UFC's and even back then there were rabbit punches from all kinds of positions.
 
Wrestling is the hardest skill to master. Plenty of great wrestlers have gone on to be top strikers. GSP is pretty much the only guy to achieve the opposite.
 
hypologic said:
In other words you don't have a source and you're talking out of your ass. I've seen all of the early UFC's and even back then there were rabbit punches from all kinds of positions.
Click to expand...

I feel like we used to see more ground and pound finishes. I don't have stats, or a reason or whatever as far as rules or any of that stuff, but it feels like there used to be more brutal GNP.

Jones and Rory Mac are bringing it back, though. Cain too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,673
Messages
55,433,536
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top