I'm sure the striking is better than grappling arguements have been done over and over, the obvious answer would be that you require both, so my question is do you believe that it is possible to effectively defend oneself using one or the other? What are the pros and cons from each approach?
hard to say, depends on what you want, and how your body mechanics are. generally, it's harder to strike someone who's chargin at you like a spear, so grappling is a good counterattack. i would use grappling as the first resort, and if all else fails, then strike weak spots. you're trying to survive, not kill the other guy, unless absolutely necessary. btw, great post ideas judderman.
Thanks. I agree it will depend a little on what you are best at, but is it enough to be solely one or the other? For instance if you become particularly good at one particular aspect, can you do away with the other? If you are a fantastic first striker, why bother with the grappling?
there are certain situations more geared for grappling, and certain ones geared for striking. for example, if fighting someone with a knife, would you really want that guy close to you by grappling, or if the ground had glass on it, or when fighting multiple opponents. and striking, if you're fighting someone under the inlfuence of drugs or alcohol, are you ready to risk punching full force even though you know they probably won't feel it? perhaps grappling would be the better option, because you could throw him from your path and escape.
Can you effectively defend yourself with one or the other, yes. Striking is often the quickest way to end a fight. Range and speed are the highlights. Its effectiveness is negated by closing distance and grappling. Grappling leaves you in a vulnerable spot until you can close the distance, so your likely to get quite a beating trying to get in, but once you get in, its all over. Good for weapons, it reduces their abilty to use the weapon and getting control of the weapon is a prime objective.
i dunno, i really wouldn't want to be grabbing my opponent at close range when he's armed, even with aikido or jj. for me, striking is the cry the other guy is armed, although i may employ the odd wrist lock.
YES, you can effectively defend yourself by striking someone, YES you can effectively defend yourself by grappling someone. But keep in mind when you grapple you often may strike.
if you want an actual mathematical representation, this is what I, and that is the very lowest of credit, suggest: 60% striking 40% grappling use the grappling as a starter, to show you mean no actual harm. if problem persists, strike in non pressure areas, using mostly thrust kicks to keep them at bay. if they still attack, fight to escape, and that may mean using both arts in an attempt to injure.
I would say grappling is not necessary if you dont have a problem with hurting someone and posibly breaking some bones. But then again thats just me and my experience, a thrust kick to the knee of a person trying to close in on you has worked nicely for me.
The arguement for grappling/groundfighting etc, largely revolves around those unfortunate occasions when it (insert favoured technique of the month here) doesn't.
From my experience it has always worked for me, however if it hadnt I admit I would have had to improvise quickly if I had no grappling skills. It really depends on the person's level of skill, if you dont have a high level of skill in standing up combat learning a ground art could do wonders. But if your stand up combat is of a high level I doubt you will have a hard time pulling another technique out of the hat and being able to keep yourself from going to the ground.
This all sounds good in theory, but we all have realize that sooner or later you're gonna fight someone that doesn't fight the way you want and you're either gonna have to learn to improvise or get you @$$ kicked hard. Either way I'd recommend you train in both types of arts. But that's a begginers opinion, or atleast a beginner in the martial arts world anyway. I'm pretty experienced in street fights but that's not important.
Dont get me wrong, what I said its just my oppinion, I am in no way an authority on the crosstraining subject or any other subject for that matter. Just a hard working martial artist sharing my thoughts :Angel:
I don't wanna come across as a pain in the butt, and in no way am I trying to say you're totally wrong, but I'm just saying that your thoughts don't always work that's all believe me I've been beat up enough times trying to get my way in a fight. lol. Then I cross trained in BJJ. Now I can pretty much fight in any scenario. -NeonxBurst
try dropping someone when they're spearing you. even if you punched them in the back, they'd have too much momentum to feel it, and you wouldn't want another person dominating you on the ground.
okay. i can see where this is going. or may be going. anyway, one side will say "ill just stop him before he can take me down" nd then the other side says "yeah, that works in theory, not always" and then say "try stopping someone who is really trying to "ground n' pound" you." the point is, grapplers, there are some who can keep on their feet regardless of your efforts, and strikers, there is someone who can take you down regardless of your ability. it is possible to drop someone while being speared, a good shot to the back of the head can do it. it is also possible to remain conscious after one of those punches, and decimate him on the ground. ps- i am not referring to anyone in this thread, i have heard these a LOT in other threads. anyway, grappling pros- can stop someone regardless of pain, works better against weapons, cons- takedowns can leave you vulnerable, groups are hard to beat grappling striking pros- can stop regardless of pain, more likely to escape if needed, works better using a weapon, better for groups cons- have to be precise and calm, leaves more openings for takedowns
