Is grappling superior to striking?

Question

its like every time i see a fight (one on one of course) between a grappler and a striker, the grappler seems to win 70% of the time. why is this?

Answer 1

No, while on the mat grapplers have the advantage once your on the street there are many hostile variables, there could be broken glass on the ground, your opponent could have a weapon, or you could be attacked by more than person. If a grappler tried to take a guy with a knife to the ground,chances are he's gonna get stabbed, while a striker can use kicks and punches to say farther away from the knife.

I'm not trying to bash grappling, as it's best to

always have both, but alone just like striking, it can be dangerous to yourself depending on the environment.

Answer 2

The rules that govern the fight. Not the rules that are agreed upon before a fight but the system of thought that fighters get pulled into by the other fighter. You often hear coaches say "Don't play his game!" or "Make him ____!" In the UFC Arena or other similar venues strikers will try to do things they have no business trying because, they feel (unconsciously)  "This is what I need to do to win."

Put all that aside, a direct blow to the back of the head is not allowed in most of these arenas because of it's effectiveness. But most all grapplers will attack the hips with their head down exposing the base of their skull. Drop an elbow, it's all done. Worst case scenario is a grappler that is now a paraplegic, and the best case scenario is you just knock him down a bit.

Answer 3

It's difficult to say which is superior to the other as technique, power and speed are unique to each fighter, and that effectiveness is different against each opponent.

If however you have two fighters, one only skilled as a grappler and one only skilled as a stricker, the likelihood is that the grappler will win. Why? The stiker will probably be able to land a few punches or kicks but very quickly the grappler will take the striker to the mat.  On the mat a stricker who is unfamiliar with grappling will be quickly overwhelmed and forced into submission. Early UFC is a classic example of this.

A striker with solid grapple defence on the other hand is a force to be reckoned with. If they are able to keep a distance and land strikes, and can escape from being manouvered into guard (back on mat) position and can remain in a dominant position, they can lay some brutal hits down. But that's a big if.

A grappler with good strike defence can take the punches and kicks, land a few of their own, but will be able to take the striker to the ground. Even with their back on the mat and striker in their guard, they should be able to defend strikes, bringing the striker in and close so they can't strike effectively. On the ground the grappler should be able to out-manouvre the striker into a submission technique, or put themselves in a position to land their own strikes, which a striker will be less familiar at defending.

Overall most fights go to the mat, and it is here that a grappler has the advantage. On the mat technique is much more valuable than strength.

Answer 4

it depends on who's throwing and who's grappling.

Answer 5

Grappling is made to control and neutralize strikes. When a grappler has a striker in the clinch it is hard for the striker to throw punches and kicks. About 12 years ago NOBODY knew or cared about grappling. Now you can't live without it. I mean, a fighter is not a real fighter unless he knows how to wrestle and apply submissions (as well as controlling and finding superior positions in a fight).

But ultimately it all depends on different factors. If you watch MMA now, most fights end in TKO due to strikes. The ref stops the fight because  the guy is getting punched repeatedly in the face and cannot defend himself.

I've seen Brazilian Jiu-jitsu guys get knocked out in their own guard and I've been tapped out a few times because I was a nice guy and didn't punch Joe Blow in the face 50 times before he got me in an armbar (when I could have).

It all depends. The ideal situation is to be trained in both. Just being a puncher won't cut it and just being a wrestler won't either.

Grappling teaches you to be "alive" in your sparring. So does real boxing / muay thai. Controlling and fighting a live opponent can teach you more in one fight than a year of katas and shadow boxing can.

Answer 6

Depends guy with 1 year Striking v.s. 1 year grappling Grappler wins

10 years striking and decent TD defense v.s. 1 year grappling

Striker Wins

Answer 7

well what I find is that the grappler is able to get the fight to ground before the striker is able to land a good shot and since the striker does not know how to fight on the ground the grappler will win. Does not mean grappling is better it just means that the grappler was able to exploit a hole in the strikers fighting style

In the end though all one needs to do is make sure that they at least become familiar with both striking and grappling even if they just want to focus on just one style

Answer 8

Real fights:  no.  Ring fights with rules:  yes.  

Most real fights I've seen, grapplers lose.  Most ring fights:  grapplers win, but, this trend is changing.  Remember Brandon Vera winning fights with head kicks?

Answer 9

h**l no

Answer 10

If your better at grappling then they are at striking then it is but it can be looked at both ways if they a are very good at striking then your probaly not going to last very long

Answer 11

Grappling is superior to striking.  This is because the opponent (striker) is neutralized when taken to the ground.  All of the years put in training, various combinations, etc, go down the drain when he is taken to the mat.  This was most clearely represented in UFC 1, with Royce Gracie winning it all.  The best thing one can do if a striker is practice take-down defense.  Sprawls, counters, etc, and do anything you can to keep the feet standing up.  Eventually though, the striker goes down (usually) and you've entered into the world of grappling.

Answer 12

Pure grappler vs 3 opponents or 1 with a knife that knows how to use it.....Not good odds

Pure striker vs 3 people or 1 with a knife tht knows how to use it...better odds

striker or grappler vs untrained mugger....both have good odds

The above are situations that you are more likely to encounter in real life self defense, where it is all about survivaln not street fighting, which is about ego, so you tell me which is better?

Answer 13

I like to think of it like this.  If a person is standing in a chair and another person is standing on the floor, is it easier for the person in the chair to pull the guy on the floor up to him, or is easier for the guy on the ground to drag the chair guy down?

Simply put, if you throw pure striking against pure grappling, you'll see that it is a simple matter for the grappler to eat a few strikes or otherwise wait for his opponent to commit to a striking attack and then grab a hold of him and toss him on the ground.  Once on the ground, the striker can't effectively generate power for strikes and, since he's out of his element, is likely to get pummeled or tapped by the grappler.

Answer 14

It doesn't matter what you do it's how well you do it.