Striking vs Grappling: What's Your Take on It?

Pug160

I should start off by saying I'm not an expert - I've done little bits and pieces of a few martial arts and it has given me somewhat of an outlook on things, but nothing more. Also, this thread is about striking vs grappling in a self defence context.

My very short take on it is this:

Striking arts such as boxing and muay Thai are very practical and the full contact sparring involved will help toughen you up and desensitise you to violence. Teaches you about range and timing and is of great benefit when challenged by more than one person. Fights usually start within punching range. Enhances your reflexes.

The downsides in my opinion are that striking arts, especially Thai boxing, are very aggressive and it looks an awful lot like an assault, which may not go down too well if police are involved. May be overkill if your intention isn't to hurt someone but just to control them.

Grappling seems to be pretty useful if you don't want to really hurt someone but just control them. Full contact sparring in arts such as judo will desensitise you to violence. May be superior to striking in one on one situations (this may not always be the case and is completely contextual however). If police are involved it's more likely to look like genuine self defence.

The downsides are that grappling and throws take longer and a third party could become involved. Even though it's generally safer than striking, dumping someone head first onto concrete is probably as dangerous as anything.

Anyway, these are just a few things I came up with. What does everybody else think?

arybvtcw0eolkf

I don't like hitting people because it hurts my ickle hands... I like throwing people because break falls hurt other peoples ickle hands

Peetrik

Pug160 wrote: »

this thread is about striking vs grappling in a self defence context.

Why limit yourself to one or the other if its purely from a self defense perspective. Both is obviously the correct answer.

manga_10

I agree with Peetrik, look at Bruce lee's work on the subject. His thought process was that it was advantageous to be proficient in all realms of the martial arts and not merely limit ourselves into becoming an one dimensional martial artist. After all martial arts is about growth.

Pug160

I agree that having both is best. I was just wanting to discuss the pros and cons of each, as a lot of people who don't do MMA just do one martial art. In all honesty, anything that involves full contact sparring will be more more than enough when dealing with the average drunken idiot.

Peetrik

Well you pretty much covered the pro vs cons. The only thing I'd point out is that your cons for striking sound more like cons from a professional doorman/security point of view and not a self defense/defending your home&family issue.

Either way there is no right answer, it'll all boil down to personal preference/what you're good at.

I like to strike from the clinch for my own part

Mellor

Peetrik wrote: »

The only thing I'd point out is that your cons for striking sound more like cons from a professional doorman/security point of view and not a self defense/defending your home&family issue.

I thought so too.
If I'm in a situation where I end up striking. It's to protect myself or sonebody else. I don't really care what it looks like.

Pug160

Mellor wrote: »

I thought so too.
If I'm in a situation where I end up striking. It's to protect myself or sonebody else. I don't really care what it looks like.

I'm not disagreeing with striking - there's a time and place for everything. I just think grappling can be applied in more situations, that's all.

Peetrik

Pug160 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with striking - there's a time and place for everything. I just think grappling can be applied in more situations, that's all.

I don't follow, what situations can grappling be applied to that striking couldn't, strictly from a self defense perspective?

Pug160

Peetrik wrote: »

I don't follow, what situations can grappling be applied to that striking couldn't, strictly from a self defense perspective?

If you know you're a lot more powerful than the other guy and don't want to hurt him, like a drunken idiot or bum. He comes in with a wild swing and you restrain him without really hurting him. Striking in that situation would be overkill in my opinion, and inhumane in some cases.

Peetrik

Pug160 wrote: »

If you know you're a lot more powerful than the other guy and don't want to hurt him, like a drunken idiot or bum. He comes in with a wild swing and you restrain him without really hurting him. Striking in that situation would be overkill in my opinion, and inhumane in some cases.

Sounds great, you must be confident in your ability to read someones striking ability from that one swing, while at the same time figuring out how many mates they have not to mention your own ability to restrain them without hurting them or endangering yourself and family.

I'll stick to trying to punch them in the head

arybvtcw0eolkf

Pug160 wrote: »

I just think grappling can be applied in more situations, that's all.

Mike Tyson has a saying, I use it often myself. It goes;

"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the face"

Peetrik wrote: »

I'll stick to trying to punch them in the head

^^ What he said.

Then apply any grappling you want!.

But every asshole respects a clatter first!.

Pug160

I don't disagree, I just think there's a million and one different situations. Full force isn't always going to be needed. Let's take a really extreme example and say that an angry pensioner approached you - you'd just want to restrain him. You wouldn't react the same way to him as you would a 30 year old man. You'd agree with that at least? I very rarely get into confrontations anyway, so I don't have to worry a lot about this stuff, thankfully.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Pug160 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I just think there's a million and one different situations. Full force isn't always going to be needed. Let's take a really extreme example and say that an angry pensioner approached you - you'd just want to restrain him. You wouldn't react the same way to him as you would a 30 year old man. You'd agree with that at least? I very rarely get into confrontations anyway, so I don't have to worry a lot about this stuff, thankfully.

You know what, push him away and tell him to 'f*ck off'.. If he persists do it again, its not rocket science ~ he'll eventually get the message and feck off.

Mellor

Pug160 wrote: »

I don't disagree, I just think there's a million and one different situations. Full force isn't always going to be needed. Let's take a really extreme example and say that an angry pensioner approached you - you'd just want to restrain him. You wouldn't react the same way to him as you would a 30 year old man. You'd agree with that at least? I very rarely get into confrontations anyway, so I don't have to worry a lot about this stuff, thankfully.

But what if you're at a beach and an irate nudist covered in bronzing oil attacks you. He's all slippy and you can't grapple. Oh No!

pablohoney87

Mellor wrote: »

But what if you're at a beach and an irate nudist covered in bronzing oil attacks you. He's all slippy and you can't grapple. Oh No!

Actually come to think of it I've never seen a grumpy nudist. They always seem over friendly if anything

pearsquasher

My take....Learn both disciplines within an art that integrates them fluidly and that applies both to SD situations on a regular basis including things like legal consequences, control-not-injure scenarios, security/bouncer considerations and of course use of weapons.

I think I know one or two arts that do that..

This idea of mixing a pure grappling with a pure striking art not matter how great they are, for SD use, is a bit Frakenstein-esque to me. If two arts are specialist in certain areas or ranges and don't consider weapons or "foul play" then trying to merge them together through trial and error and throwing in weapons doesn't make as much sense as finding an art that never "unmixed" them in the first place and therefore has the weight of longevity in integrated movement through generations behind it. Especially if a lot of those generations saw actual use in a less legally bound societies in the past.

So to answer the question.... EVERY SD situation requires control of both striking, grappling AND weapons facets to some degree. I would expect a judge to consider the perpetrator of assault, be it SD or not, who had MA training, to me MORE capable of judgment than any victim who came a cropper, be they the instigator of the assault or not. But why should the judge consider this if all you did was specialize in striking in a ring? They actually shouldn't.

Khannie

Vada Puny Glycerine wrote: »

But every asshole respects a clatter first!.

OOooh MATRON!

Dave_English

I think it greatly matters where you strike, obviously starting an all out brawl looks much more violent but sharp effective strikes to the liver and solar plexus can quickly and easily diffuse a situation without appearing too violent or causing any blood injuries, while grappling is extremely effective sometimes time and surroundings don't permit much use!

Arcsin

In the kind of situation you are describing I think striking from the clinch would be the most important thing to focus on.

Nearly all drunken fights begin at a very close range and end up in some kind of clinch. Good strikes from there could end it quickly or create the opportunity for you need to get the fcuk out of there.

Decent wrestling would be good to have so you can make sure you stay standing up.

It's hard to say really though as those kind of brawls are messy, unpredictable and usually with unequal numbers of opponents.

fightinghacked

In my opinion striking wins the day here because you can strike and still look like you're defending yourself by holding your hands up in a defensive "stop" position just before you strike. It will look like self defense to witnesses even if you strike first because of the body language you expressed before the strike. But as a few other posters pointed out, it depends entirely on the situation. Grappling serves it's purpose in the ring but I think using it in the street is risky because there are no rules in the street and who's to say the guy you're grappling doesn't have friends that will happily stamp on your head once you take him down? There's no guarantees and that's why I think perfecting your striking is much more practical and effective in relation to defending yourself in the street.

In my humble opinion I think going to the ground should be the last option in a street fight, but that's just me. And at the end of the day if someone is fronting you they've already decided to forfeit their safety. You can ask them to back off but if they persist you have every right to strike. Don't shy away from striking, I know it looks ugly but it could save your life and you can always control the intensity of a strike anyway. Maybe you just want to scare them enough so they'll back off, so you don't need to hit them as hard as you can. Most people like to front but if you show them you're not afraid, 7 out of 10 times they'll sense that fearlessness and back off. And if they don't well then it's their own fault. And you can still strike if it goes to the ground anyway!, so if you think about you should probably really only grapple if they can grapple, but if they can't grapple, just strike!! Okay, I think I'm done now. (sigh)


p.s. Sorry for the rambling, I'm an over zealous newbie that's passionate about self defense

Pug160

Yeah, I think if you only had one choice a striking art would probably be best. But knowing some grappling gives you options in different situations, and maybe a plan b if it is needed and you can execute it.

One non striking art that seems to be well respected for self defence is judo. I think Geoff Thompson and a few other respected figures have given it praise. Boxing and judo would probably be a great combo.

Mellor

fightinghacked wrote: »

In my humble opinion I think going to the ground should be the last option in a street fight, but that's just me.

Something that a lot I'd people overlook is that the guy with the grappling background is going to be more able to avoid falling to the ground if he wishes. Or trip or throw the guy to the ground and stay standing himself.

Mr. CooL ICE

Any excuse to post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNroQ1-dWs

Peetrik

Mellor wrote: »

Something that a lot I'd people overlook is that the guy with the grappling background is going to be more able to avoid falling to the ground if he wishes. Or trip or throw the guy to the ground and stay standing himself.

Well a Judo guy or a wrestler sure, no question, but all or even most grapplers? Speaking from complete ignorance but most BJJ classes I've seen (which admittedly hasn't been a lot) spend the majority of their time focusing on ground technique and positioning.
Some striking arts such at Sanshou or Thai spend large quantity's of their time (every training session) drilling staying standing while putting your opponent on their arse.

Not completely a black and white thing

Mellor

Peetrik wrote: »

Well a Judo guy or a wrestler sure, no question, but all or even most grapplers? Speaking from complete ignorance but most BJJ classes I've seen (which admittedly hasn't been a lot) spend the majority of their time focusing on ground technique and positioning.

A lot of the action takes place on the ground due to the nature of the rules. But all Bjj matches start starting, the initial action will be judo techniques, or even wrestling. I can only comment on my club, but there's a lot of cross training

A lot of
Some striking arts such at Sanshou or Thai spend large quantity's of their time (every training session) drilling staying standing while putting your opponent on their arse.

Not completely a black and white thing[/quote]

Mellor

Peetrik wrote: »

Well a Judo guy or a wrestler sure, no question, but all or even most grapplers? Speaking from complete ignorance but most BJJ classes I've seen (which admittedly hasn't been a lot) spend the majority of their time focusing on ground technique and positioning.

A lot of the action takes place on the ground due to the nature of the rules. But all Bjj matches start starting, the initial action will be judo techniques, or even wrestling. We tend to crosstrain elements from other styles, I imagine most good clubs do too.

Some striking arts such at Sanshou or Thai spend large quantity's of their time (every training session) drilling staying standing while putting your opponent on their arse.

Not completely a black and white thing

I never said that strikers don't train to stay standing. It's a big part of lots of arts.
It's just people always say "the last place you want to be is on the ground" as some sort of criticism of grappling, which ignores defensive grappling and assumes that a grappler would approach a street fight as if it was a match under their own rule set. Both of which are a bit silly.

Dermighty

Pug160 wrote: »

If you know you're a lot more powerful than the other guy and don't want to hurt him, like a drunken idiot or bum. He comes in with a wild swing and you restrain him without really hurting him. Striking in that situation would be overkill in my opinion, and inhumane in some cases.

Personally speaking I'd be more inclined to try to choke somebody and put them to sleep than restrain them. as a bouncer restraint is my first priority but from a self defense perspective I want to stop the guy and make sure he doesn't get up again (no macho connotations intended).

Peetrik

Mellor wrote: »

But all Bjj matches start starting, the initial action will be judo techniques, or even wrestling. We tend to crosstrain elements from other styles, I imagine most good clubs do too.

I stand corrected in that case. Had only ever seen rolling start from a top, bottom or kneeling positions

Tom.D.BJJ

Grappling =/= going to the ground

In answer to the original question, both are useful.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Andrew H

The hardest thing you can hit someone with is the ground.

At a BJJ seminar given by Rickson Gracie, Black Belt - Shane Rice he stated that every Black Belt in BJJ should have Black Belt level in Judo to complement his ground game.

Most Jiu Jitsu teams have a striking coach unless they focus purely on sport Jiu Jitsu.