Who is better a stand up fighter or ground fighter?

Question

Who is better a stand up fighter or ground fighter?

Answer 1

depends on the fighter

Answer 2

You know, I honestly don't subscribe to the "it all depends on the fighter" mantra I see constantly. There is certainly some truth to it, but to say it depends exclusively on the fighter is a bit much to swallow. Some styles are bound to be better than others.

So I think of it this way. If a guy is cloned and each trains for the exact same time period- one in stand up, one on the ground- then will there be a stalemate? Obviously not.

So here's my opinion. The ground fighter is more effective in a 1v1 fight. If he's good enough, all he really has to do is take a single hit, rush in, and take the stand up fighter to the ground (where all that training means squat to the stand up guy). Now, is there a chance he may get knocked the h**l out in his take down attempt? Sure. But we're talking odds here. And in my opinion, the odds of a stand up guy knocking someone out in one hit is a lot less than the odds of a ground guy going in, taking a hit, and taking the dude down.

Once on the ground, the fights pretty much over for the stand up guy unless he knows how to wrestle/roll. On the other hand, standing up, the two are more or less on even footing in terms of options.The stand up guys has his striking, the ground guy has his takedowns.

Now if we're talking multiple opponents, the ground fighter would obviously get destroyed. While he's got all his weapons committed to one guy, I'm sure the other guys would be bashing his brains out from behind.

Answer 3

The style doesn't matter. The type of fighter doesn't matter. A stand up fighter is at home when he's standing up. A ground fighter is at home on the ground. A good fighter is in the moment, and makes the best out of whatever situation they find themselves in.

There a saying: A fighter is only as good as his last fight. That's only partially true. A fighter is judged minute-by-minute and second-by-second.

It's all situational.

Answer 4

im a stand up fighter and took down some ground fighters?

Answer 5

Both have their advantages and disadvantages which is why MMA fighters train in both, so their more wellrounded.

Unless people give you clear evidence don't believe people telling you statistics like the guy above.

Answer 6

90% of fights go to the ground so i'd give an edge to ground fighting, but yes it does depend on the fighter, like chuck liddell very good at keeping the fight standing.

Answer 7

even though i do tkd instead i have to say stand-up fighting is best

but thats one man's opinion

Answer 8

I was a boxer with a 31-2-1 amateur record and a 6-1 amateur kickboxing record before I took up mixed martial arts. I started training in Sambo and BJJ 2 1/2 years ago and I must say that I enjoy fighting on the ground alot more than standing now.

Answer 9

A stand up fighter. When 2 people get into a fight, you start standing up....it makes sense that you would like to end the fight the same way.

Answer 10

if the stand up fighter has no ground skills than i would say the ground fighter is much better. ground fighters in general are much more aware of the strategy to win a fight because they study real fights and hence adopt the ground system. plus ground fighters train under more realistic circumstances and try to tap out their training partners. stand up fighters use a point system that doesn't reflect the impact of really being hit. If you are living in the USA than I think your chances of becoming a great stand up fighter are much less since our society has no tolerance for hitting a person. Striking comes more into play only after a stand up fight knows how to defend from ground attacks.