Why striking (stand up) loses to wrestling more often than not

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking to accomplish with this, but it's propaganda at best. If you're using MMA as an example, the missing part is the level of stand-up fighters, and a wrestling-favoritist rule-set. Even then, it's not like mediocre strikers never knocked out wrestlers. Kerr got his ass whooped on his feet more than once, Coleman got waited out and beat up by Williams and Smith before they invoked the time limits. Randleman got knocked out more than once in the first round. King Mo was knocked out. I mean, if all that shit in your first post were blanket truths, none of these KO's would have been possible. So yeah, a wrestler can defeat a striker, if they don't get slept in the process. Oh and that's medium-level strikers vs. reputable wrestlers, some on the World and Oly levels.

That's a huge point that people ignore. If we want to talk about the level of grappling in the UFC right now, we can list Olympians (Cejudo, Cormier, Hendo, Romero, Rousey, Lombard), BJJ World Champs (Jacare, Werdum, Moraes, Gonzaga, Antonio Braga Neto, Gilbert Burns), ADCC Champs (Maia, Werdum, Jacare) and D1 NCAA champs (Koscheck, Hendricks, Davis). Those aren't just good grapplers. Those are grapplers competing at the absolute highest levels of their sport. Fucking Jacare Souza is consistently ranked one of the top 3 BJJ competitors OF ALL TIME. He alone is more accomplished as a grappler than every fucking striker in the UFC combined.

Seriously, who's the highest-level striker in the UFC right now?

The reason for all this is simple: There's no money in grappling, but plenty in striking--especially at the top. A top amateur boxer in the US, for example, isn't gonna risk his potentially successful pro career to make less money as an MMA fighter. What about the best kickboxers? Well, look at Holzken, Spong and De Bonte. They're all taking boxing fights.
 
^The funny part is the better the striker is at striking, the worse people declare they would do in a format with less rules. Ronda Rousey isn't very likely to easily defeat any male who is too strong for her to toss around, but fanboys (who wanna get pegged by her) are CERTAIN she'd maul fuckin' Floyd Mayweather in an MMA scenario. Because you know, arguably the best boxer alive wouldn't do something like land punches on someone marching right at him.
 
It is really a fact that not too many good strikers try MMA. The interesting question is why ?

I think that it is usually not related to money. In boxing, besides the stars, most people don't get paid too much. Say, Chambers, in one of his recent fights fought for something like 10k.

My theory is that the transition to MMA is easier for wrestlers than for strikers.
 
Zelg Galešić is a world class striker (former world and european champion of my art Taekwon-Do ITF) and while he was MMA-champion in some lower organisation, his overall record is not that great.
 
- A striker is 9 times out 10 largely inferior in strenght to that of a wrestler. Get in close and you will get taken down once he grabs on to you.

IMO, that ^ is the main reason. When you have a good striker, who also happens to be strong - he will do fine. Compare Mirko vs Stefan Leko achievements in MMA as example.
 
Last edited:
IMO, that ^ is the main reason. When you have a good striker, who also happens to be strong - he will do fine. Compare Mirko vs Stephan Leko achievements in MMA as example.


Yes. Finally someone understands. I can visit any BJJ gym and fuck up an average sized guy. They train starting on their knees. Let them try and take me down and I will destroy them. A heavyweight BJJ who's very strong, say like Joe Rogan, is a different story. But they don't tend to be "wrestling strong".
 
It is much easier to hug someone than it is to land a punch with KO power, specially against someone who wants to hug you instead of trading blows. Gracie 101.
 
It is much easier to hug someone than it is to land a punch with KO power, specially against someone who wants to hug you instead of trading blows. Gracie 101.

Royce Gracie is nothing special by the highest BJJ standards. The strikers were even worse than they are today when he fought. He did have a great chin though. Hackney landed some pretty good blows.
 
Obvious troll is obvious.

The two sports are uncomparable because one of them involves learning to get the fight where you want it vs a resisting opponent.

Strikers would have to have trained their entire life to thwart takedowns.

Now we are seeing in mma what happens when you have strikers who have done that and it's a vastly more level playing field, one that even tips in favour of the best versed striker.

Your basically comparing basketball to net ball. Pointless.
 
Obvious troll is obvious.

The two sports are uncomparable because one of them involves learning to get the fight where you want it vs a resisting opponent.

Strikers would have to have trained their entire life to thwart takedowns.

Now we are seeing in mma what happens when you have strikers who have done that and it's a vastly more level playing field, one that even tips in favour of the best versed striker.

Your basically comparing basketball to net ball. Pointless.

No. I am comparing two forms of fighting.Everything is clearly just sport in your guys world. How about just plain and simple combat?
 
Last edited:
No. I am comparing two forms of fighting.Everything is clearly just sport in your guys world. How about just plain and simple combat?

Boxing or wrestling are nearly as relevant to combat as American football.

Why are you comparing them?

Why not compare horse riding and kendo for being drunk, or how about scrabble and chess for monopoly?

Soccer is a form of fighting except you use a ball and a goal. Really you're just comparing competition.
 
Boxing or wrestling are nearly as relevant to combat as American football.

Why are you comparing them?

Why not compare horse riding and kendo for being drunk, or how about scrabble and chess for monopoly?

Soccer is a form of fighting except you use a ball and a goal. Really you're just comparing competition.

Because they are forms of fighting and I am intrigued by the "science" of overpowering your opponent. I love fighting. My father is a martial artist.
 
It is really a fact that not too many good strikers try MMA. The interesting question is why ?

I think that it is usually not related to money. In boxing, besides the stars, most people don't get paid too much. Say, Chambers, in one of his recent fights fought for something like 10k.

My theory is that the transition to MMA is easier for wrestlers than for strikers.

It's definitely money. Keep in mind that even if a boxer had the potential to make more in MMA, it would definitely not be enough to cover the risk. If you know you can make 10 grand doing what you already do in boxing, you're not gonna drop that to make the transition to a sport that has a fraction of the money in it and requires you to learn a ton of new shit, unless you find somebody who's gonna pay you enough to make that worth your while. That isn't likely to happen.

There's also the fact that a lot of people just don't know about, like or give a shit about MMA.

I don't know about wrestling being easier to transition to MMA either. In the short term, definitely. But we haven't seen a steady stream of top, or even average striking talent come into MMA. You can't throw a rock at the UFC roster without hitting a D1 All American or BJJ black belt, but try to find a decently credentialed striker and you'll come up with only a handful of guys. The truth is that we have no idea if a striking background is better or worse for MMA because we haven't seen, and won't see, a significant sample size of strikers on the same level as the grapplers making the full-time transition.
 
By the way, it's worth noting that every UFC champ is either the best, or one of the best strikers in their division. Including Rousey, sad as that is to say.
 
That's because TKD is for pussies.

I know you're trolling, but for the sake of everyone else reading the thread, how 1 striker does is pretty worthless to look at. You can use it as a case study, but without a much larger sample size no meaningful conclusions can be drawn--which is why the people who bring up Ray Mercer and James Toney in these discussions are idiots.

TKD is for pussies, yet that guy is a fucking a killer in the cage.... He sended Sakuraba to the hospital and caused a head trauma... That being said, Galesic still posts a middle of the road overall record.
 
Last edited:
I consider a bullet impacting a person's skull as a strike, so striking wins. I'd put my money on a guy with a .45 over an Olympic level wrestling any day. Unless the wrestler also has a gun.
 
It's definitely money. Keep in mind that even if a boxer had the potential to make more in MMA, it would definitely not be enough to cover the risk. If you know you can make 10 grand doing what you already do in boxing, you're not gonna drop that to make the transition to a sport that has a fraction of the money in it and requires you to learn a ton of new shit, unless you find somebody who's gonna pay you enough to make that worth your while. That isn't likely to happen.

There's also the fact that a lot of people just don't know about, like or give a shit about MMA.

I don't know about wrestling being easier to transition to MMA either. In the short term, definitely. But we haven't seen a steady stream of top, or even average striking talent come into MMA. You can't throw a rock at the UFC roster without hitting a D1 All American or BJJ black belt, but try to find a decently credentialed striker and you'll come up with only a handful of guys. The truth is that we have no idea if a striking background is better or worse for MMA because we haven't seen, and won't see, a significant sample size of strikers on the same level as the grapplers making the full-time transition.

Ok, I will use another example. Say, in amateur boxing you have quite a lot of people who are 1)very high class fighters 2) don't make enough money 3) don't try pro boxing.

Those would be ideal candidates to try MMA if the transition seemed ok to them. On paper, they have superior standup + good motivation in terms of money. Still they don't do it.
 
Or somebody like Kovalev - before he got some good offers recently, he considered to leave boxing (since he could not get enough money from it).

If the transition would look doable to him - why not to try MMA ?
 
Or somebody like Kovalev - before he got some good offers recently, he considered to leave boxing (since he could not get enough money from it).

If the transition would look doable to him - why not to try MMA ?

MMA isn't really a global sport the way something like boxing is. 90% of mma fighters are North American or Brazilian. Sure there's ONE FC and all, and a lot of good fighters coming out of places like Dagestan and Chechnya, but MMA isn't popular or respected in many parts of the world. Chances are, like most others, he just doesn't give a shit about MMA--and certainly not enough to take all the risks involved for such little reward.

Or a good amateur that didn't want to go pro. Why would he go pro in MMA if not boxing? What's the incentive? It's not really gonna happen unless that guy LIKES MMA, which many people don't. They don't really have good incentives in terms of money, definitely not compared to if they got into boxing. They have to learn entire new skillsets only to get paid less than they would if they kept boxing. It's more likely they would either quit combat sports altogether if they didn't want to go pro.

There's also the fact that no one has to pave the way for grapplers making the transition. It's already well-paved. There are gyms that specialize in teaching wrestlers how to fight. Strikers have only had scattered representation. The systems aren't in place for the transition to be fluid for them. Not many people are willing to be the innovators who show it can be done.
 
Back
Top