- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 0
weights and the double is all you need bruhhhhh. :icon_chee
Why striking (stand up) loses to wrestling more often than not
- Thread starter spacetime
- Start date
weights and the double is all you need bruhhhhh. :icon_chee
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,672
- Reaction score
- 2,378
You made a good point, but a lame tactic is still a lame tactic.
You could also argue that diving and faking fouls in soccer is a skill, as a lot of the best players seem very good at it. It's still a lame thing to do which the sport wasn't really designed for.
That's just ONE factor. You try fending off a wrestler once he's up close in a clinch and you failed to knock him out.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,333
- Reaction score
- 0
typical awful sherdog thread is typical.
Both clinching and flop/fouling are huge parts of the meta games of each respective sport though, and smart people take advantage of it for their own benefit and to control play (and they are definitely skills). If the sports aren't designed for them (which they've had decades to correct) and the governing bodies don't change it then hate the game, not the player.
with the huge amounts of money in soccer for example, if governing bodies were that concerned they'd make use of action replay technology for the referees to use, as well as adjudicators to deliberate, as so many other professional sports do these days. It Would completely get rid of the culture of professional fouls and dives. But that might take the sense of pace and continuity out the game for the worse. Or maybe it's just accepted that the culture should exist. No sport is perfect and pleases everyone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 21,025
- Reaction score
- 7,436
Try actually reading my posts before spitting your dummy. You'll see I was comparing the ease of the entry to the clinch and how it can be used as an equalizer by inferior strikers to nullify a superior fighters work which goes to explain how a wrestler can neutralise a striker more easily than the other way around.
And if you still have a problem with me answering Sinister's response to my first post then take it up with him.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,980
- Reaction score
- 116
95% of all street fights go to the ground
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,600
- Reaction score
- 0
This is an interesting thread and I would like to add my humble 2 cents fwiw.
Will a striker more often than not lose to a wrestler in a one-on-one brawl or street fight? The short answer is "it depends" (on many factors). The most obvious factors are which of the two possesses the best physical attributes and which one is generally the better "warrior" (remember it's not the art or the style, it's the fighter). A longer answer to follow.
Only if that striker has no clue on how to deal with a wrestler or grappler which I will be getting to shortly.
The bold colored text I have to disagree with as it is a sweeping generalization. None of us can say that any given wrestler will always categorically be stronger than any given striker just like we cannot say that a striker will always have faster hands than a wrestler. Both statements are unfounded. It all depends on the individuals involved in the physical confrontation.
I will address this in my explanation below.
This is another unfounded statement. Again, it will always, always, always depend on the individuals involved in the fight. There will always be cases when a striker is physically stronger than a wrestler (since some people are stronger than others and no one can dictate how that genetically plays out) just like there will always be cases when a wrestler will have faster hands and better footwork than a striker (since some people are faster than others and no one can dictate how that genetically plays out either).
As to my slightly longer answer and explanations of the points that I said I would address, I would put it like this; In a one-on-one street fight between a wrestler and striker I think the wrestler would have a chance of winning only for the same reason that Royce Gracie won UFC 1 and that reason is the "element of surprise". UFC 1 convinced many people that grappling in general and BJJ in particular are far superior to striking which is not true at all. Royce had the element of surprise on his side. He knew his opponents but his opponents didn't know him. This is an excellent example of putting Sun-Tzu's words into practice:
Royce knew himself as well as his enemies whereas the hapless strikers knew neither themselves or their enemy. The Gracies were fighting Vale Tudo bouts for decades in Brazil prior to UFC 1. Royce and Co. knew exactly what to expect from the strikers but the strikers were completely in the dark about what to expect from Royce. On top of that, many of the strikers went into UFC 1 and 2 with the tournament rulesets of their striking arts ingrained in them which worked perfectly in Royce's favor.
I apply this logic to TS's assertion that a wrestler will beat a striker in a fair one. If 2 strangers get into an ego based confrontation on the street and decide to engage in Fisticuffs, usually they will both ball up their fists and throw their hands up as if ready to start swinging. This is what street brawls usually look like and usually how they play out; 2 people wildly swinging haymakers and hoping to get lucky. But if one is a wrestler he WILL eventually shoot in and 9 times out of 10 get the take down (as TS says). This is thanks largely to the element of surprise; not knowing the enemy. Not many people use clean wrestling technique in a fast, furious and adrenaline filled brawl. I believe most people are used to watching and participating in the "wildly swing and hope to get lucky" approach I just spoke of. I hope TS can see where I am going with this.
An example; "Iron" Mike Tyson in his prime (striker) vs Mark "The Hammer" Coleman in his prime (wrestler). Let's say these 2 get into it out on the street and are about to "get it on". If Mike doesn't know Mark or doesn't know that he is a wrestler who has trained enough stand up to take the fight where he is most dangerous, I am going to put all my money on The Hammer. BUT, if Mike IS aware that Mark is wrestler and Mike has trained enough wrestling to keep the fight standing then I'm putting all my money on Mike knocking Coleman the fuck out.....cold!!!
To sum it all up, I'm saying it depends on two things; 1). The fighters themselves (remember martial arts and styles don't win fights, people do) and 2). Which of the two knows both his enemy as well as himself?
How can we know the enemy today? How can I know the abilities and capabilities of the complete stranger that I get into it with in Walmart's parking lot? To me it's simple. I know the enemy by always ASSUMING! I assume that the person I am about to fight is a dangerous wrestler. I assume that he is a dangerous grappler. I assume that he is a dangerous striker. I assume that he is fast and explosive. I assume that he is freakishly strong. I assume that he has a high level of combat IQ. I assume that he's fucking crazy on top of all that. I assume the worse case scenarios and this is why I train.
This is how I personally interpret Sun-Tzu's words. By assuming these things about the person in front of me I can always be mentally alert and in a state of readiness. Ready for anything and everything. And I train to deal with anything and everything. This is my way of knowing my enemy and knowing myself and my attempts to not so easily allow the enemy to defeat through the "element of surprise".
Sorry for the long windiness fellas, but I feel this explanation is needed everytime this topic comes up (striker vs wrestler, Karate vs Judo, BJJ vs Boxing, etc). And I hope this made sense.
Will a striker more often than not lose to a wrestler in a one-on-one brawl or street fight? The short answer is "it depends" (on many factors). The most obvious factors are which of the two possesses the best physical attributes and which one is generally the better "warrior" (remember it's not the art or the style, it's the fighter). A longer answer to follow.
Only if that striker has no clue on how to deal with a wrestler or grappler which I will be getting to shortly.
The bold colored text I have to disagree with as it is a sweeping generalization. None of us can say that any given wrestler will always categorically be stronger than any given striker just like we cannot say that a striker will always have faster hands than a wrestler. Both statements are unfounded. It all depends on the individuals involved in the physical confrontation.
I will address this in my explanation below.
This is another unfounded statement. Again, it will always, always, always depend on the individuals involved in the fight. There will always be cases when a striker is physically stronger than a wrestler (since some people are stronger than others and no one can dictate how that genetically plays out) just like there will always be cases when a wrestler will have faster hands and better footwork than a striker (since some people are faster than others and no one can dictate how that genetically plays out either).
As to my slightly longer answer and explanations of the points that I said I would address, I would put it like this; In a one-on-one street fight between a wrestler and striker I think the wrestler would have a chance of winning only for the same reason that Royce Gracie won UFC 1 and that reason is the "element of surprise". UFC 1 convinced many people that grappling in general and BJJ in particular are far superior to striking which is not true at all. Royce had the element of surprise on his side. He knew his opponents but his opponents didn't know him. This is an excellent example of putting Sun-Tzu's words into practice:
Royce knew himself as well as his enemies whereas the hapless strikers knew neither themselves or their enemy. The Gracies were fighting Vale Tudo bouts for decades in Brazil prior to UFC 1. Royce and Co. knew exactly what to expect from the strikers but the strikers were completely in the dark about what to expect from Royce. On top of that, many of the strikers went into UFC 1 and 2 with the tournament rulesets of their striking arts ingrained in them which worked perfectly in Royce's favor.
I apply this logic to TS's assertion that a wrestler will beat a striker in a fair one. If 2 strangers get into an ego based confrontation on the street and decide to engage in Fisticuffs, usually they will both ball up their fists and throw their hands up as if ready to start swinging. This is what street brawls usually look like and usually how they play out; 2 people wildly swinging haymakers and hoping to get lucky. But if one is a wrestler he WILL eventually shoot in and 9 times out of 10 get the take down (as TS says). This is thanks largely to the element of surprise; not knowing the enemy. Not many people use clean wrestling technique in a fast, furious and adrenaline filled brawl. I believe most people are used to watching and participating in the "wildly swing and hope to get lucky" approach I just spoke of. I hope TS can see where I am going with this.
An example; "Iron" Mike Tyson in his prime (striker) vs Mark "The Hammer" Coleman in his prime (wrestler). Let's say these 2 get into it out on the street and are about to "get it on". If Mike doesn't know Mark or doesn't know that he is a wrestler who has trained enough stand up to take the fight where he is most dangerous, I am going to put all my money on The Hammer. BUT, if Mike IS aware that Mark is wrestler and Mike has trained enough wrestling to keep the fight standing then I'm putting all my money on Mike knocking Coleman the fuck out.....cold!!!
To sum it all up, I'm saying it depends on two things; 1). The fighters themselves (remember martial arts and styles don't win fights, people do) and 2). Which of the two knows both his enemy as well as himself?
How can we know the enemy today? How can I know the abilities and capabilities of the complete stranger that I get into it with in Walmart's parking lot? To me it's simple. I know the enemy by always ASSUMING! I assume that the person I am about to fight is a dangerous wrestler. I assume that he is a dangerous grappler. I assume that he is a dangerous striker. I assume that he is fast and explosive. I assume that he is freakishly strong. I assume that he has a high level of combat IQ. I assume that he's fucking crazy on top of all that. I assume the worse case scenarios and this is why I train.
This is how I personally interpret Sun-Tzu's words. By assuming these things about the person in front of me I can always be mentally alert and in a state of readiness. Ready for anything and everything. And I train to deal with anything and everything. This is my way of knowing my enemy and knowing myself and my attempts to not so easily allow the enemy to defeat through the "element of surprise".
Sorry for the long windiness fellas, but I feel this explanation is needed everytime this topic comes up (striker vs wrestler, Karate vs Judo, BJJ vs Boxing, etc). And I hope this made sense.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,600
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope this is a troll post.
agree with this...
my only caveat is people don't expect a skillful wrestling/judo type attack; but in almost any fight when one guy gets the worst of it, they shoot...try to clinch or throw their opponent.
so if you can strike w/any real skill...or power..the first thing someone is gonna do is try to wrestle u or maul u..
if they don't get koed or so hurt by the initial flurries/exchanges..in this case karate and kung fu may be better than boxing, because some of them have def/counters from takedowns..clinch attempts..its part of their system, if they train w/intensity and aggression they are actually somewhat prepared to be taken down..orat least have the attempt.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,217
- Reaction score
- 12
That is why I asked, what do you consider a sanshou guy then? He is a "pure" striker, because there is takedowns in it. Also I believe Burmese Bando has takedowns and ground and pound too.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,680
- Reaction score
- 5,758
There four main modern complete fighting styles - sprawl and brawl, ground and pound, ground and sub, and pull guard. Some people learn two or more of those styles and can do them all, while other people are more limited and have one way of going about things.
Any striking art with takedowns and takedown defense but without ground and pound or submissions is a sprawl and brawl art, often thought of as the best of the types for self defense.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2003
- Messages
- 21,732
- Reaction score
- 2,611
interesting way to put it thanks
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 48,493
- Reaction score
- 15,101
IMO what people forget is that since the beginning of time people have been trying to get boxers off their feet, even other boxers when in bad positions. Some guys will still grab and toss a guy instead of stand there and take an ass-whoopin. So the old "yeah man, I'll just take you down" is a concept intelligent boxers have been familiar with for quite a very long time. People on these boards behave as if this is a completely foreign concept to boxers/kickboxers, and due to modern times that may be more true now than it was before. But to any intelligent fighter who wants to be able to defend themselves on a general level, it will be considered.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,600
- Reaction score
- 0
Good post and for the record in a real self protection situation HANDS ARE KING!!! I think a smart and skilled boxer who eats and sleeps pugilism would do better than most other striking arts (and this coming from a Kyokushin fan and muay Thai student who LOVES to kick).
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,363
- Reaction score
- 0
It's different. Completely different.
