Good grappler vs good striker??

[Martial Joe]

What do you guys think about a striker of lenox lewis potential would go against a grappler of royce gracies potential?

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif IXIJoe KaveyIXIhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

[old jong]

A striker like Lennox Lewis can knock anybody out with a single punch.The grappler would have to dive for the security of the ground at the very first second of the match!...And pray that "lennox" as not learned on the side how to punch on the ground! :D ...He must be very strong! :eek:

[JerryLove]

"A striker like Lennox Lewis can knock anybody out with a single punch."

He must either be an unpopular boxer (since all his matches end in seconds) or incapable of hitting someone successfully.

Unless that "single punch" is the 50th one.

"The grappler would have to dive for the security of the ground at the very first second of the match!..."

Or remain upright and grappling. But Gracie isn't a "grapple". He is a fighter with a heavy emphasis on grappling. To get a "grapper" you would have to look at a sport that does not allow striking (like wrestling).

"And pray that "lennox" as not learned on the side how to punch on the ground! ...He must be very strong!"

Must have missed where that required special training.

[Martial Joe]

OUch Jerry just killed your post :eek:


Well who would you guys bet on if were between those actual people?

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif IXIJoe KaveyIXIhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

[old jong]

A post is never dead for those who can read! ;) :D

[Anarcho]

He said "can". To me, that implies that for any given person, it's possible that Lennox Lewis could knock them out with one punch. I'd be interested to see the freak who could take a punch from Lewis with *no* chance of being knocked out.

[Martial Joe]

Zeesh I have seen holyfield take numorous punches from him...

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif IXIJoe KaveyIXIhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

[Anarcho]

Yeah, Joe, but to deny Old Jong's post you have to say that it was *impossible* that any of those punches would knock him out. Old Jong never said that whenever Lewis punches someone he knocks them out. I still don't believe there's anyone whose head is constructed such that they *could not* be knocked out by a punch from Lewis.

[Braden]

Guys... my MOM _could_ knock anybody out in one punch.

[Anarcho]

Given we accept the possibility, we can then argue the probability. All I'm saying is it's silly to deny the possibility.

[joedoe]

Anyone can throw a punch that could potentially knock someone out. Lucky punches happen all the time in amateur fights.

cxxx[]:::::::::::>
What we do in life echoes in Eternity

[JerryLove]

Of course, since anyone *can* knock out anyone else with one punch (maybe even the first one), that does negate "The grappler would have to dive for the security of the ground at the very first second of the match". Since said grappler can knock out anyone with one punch.

[Martial Joe]

Back to the subject...


If a man that had grappling skills equally as good as the other man was at his strinking skill...how would the fight end up...

it is a ****ty question because there is not detail but you could have an answer for it.


You couldnt say either would win but more as in who it would be more dificult for...

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif IXIJoe KaveyIXIhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

[JerryLove]

I'm going to side with the grappler. Since a pure striker cannot avoid a takedown, he has a second or two to win the fight, then the grappler has all the time in the world. All the grappler has to do is survive the second or two.

Of course, in MA, there should not be such a thing as a pure striker or grappler.

[honorisc]

As to your more recen question Martial Joe, it would be a draw because they would stay out of each other's reang or avoid the other's techniques. The winner would from whoever made tactical errors or failed successful execution of technique(s).

One might wonder if that is a concensus that, "...a pure striker cannot avoid a takedown..?"

Also, I find that to be unreasonable to think that a tackle take-down is going to work thoroughly well on me, if I was just to strike.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[Martial Joe]

Jerry~have you ever been taken down if you have sparred or fought a grappler?

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif IXIJoe KaveyIXIhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/lolup.gif

[JerryLove]

Since I am a martial artist, and therefore a grappler (as well as a striker). Yes, I have gone to the floor by my opponent's will.

I even have been taken down by a pure grappler (wrestler) (I was untrained at the time, but a good wrestler would still have a decent shot).

I really want to avoid being on the ground (my strategies include assumptions like multiple opponents), but it does happen.

[Water Dragon]

Sounds to me like some of the people posting here have never fought a good boxer. He might not take you with one punch, but he WILL get you with a good combo. And once that combo starts...

Most actions of men can be explained by observing a pack of dogs. Not wild dogs, just neighborhood dogs who all scurry under the fence on the same night and set off together to reclaim a glimmer of the glory their species possessed before domestication.

[JerryLove]

So your logic is that good boxers defeat all opponents in under 3 seconds with a good combo? That is the requirement for someone who cannot avoid the takedown to win. That or he needs to win on the ground.

[Water Dragon]

I was just reading my post again. I can't find anything that says a boxer will take all opponents out. I couldn't find anything relating to time frames either. My logic was that people who talk about boxing in terms of one punch don't know much about boxing. Martial sports are funny in that way. People watch a 12 round boxing match or a 15 minute BJJ tourney and assume they could hang a good 8 rounds with a boxer or a good 5 minutes on the mat. Just my experience.

Most actions of men can be explained by observing a pack of dogs. Not wild dogs, just neighborhood dogs who all scurry under the fence on the same night and set off together to reclaim a glimmer of the glory their species possessed before domestication.

[GinSueDog]

Water Dragon,
I got your point and I agree. It is an easy trap to fall into especially if the person has little actual experience in the first place.-ED

"Ninjas are not dangerous. They are more afraid of you than you are of them." --The Tick

[JerryLove]

Since mine was the comment before your. And my bet had been on the grappler taking down the striker. When you said

"Sounds to me like some of the people posting here have never fought a good boxer. He might not take you with one punch, but he WILL get you with a good combo. And once that combo starts..."

I thought it was a disagreement with me; that you felt the striker would win because his combo WILL knock out his opponent.

I put in the "couple seconds" part. Because if a "pure striker" fails to win within a couple seconds, he is not longer fighting at his range or position. Unless he can win through striking from a grappling position (I was presuming a takedown) then he cannot win after the takedown. And since he has no skills to resist the takedown, the takedown will occur very early.

[Water Dragon]

I'm gonna do something way outside my normal posting and try to be diplomatic here. Simply because I respect your posts.

A lot of people who get into MA tend to stay in the realm of the Asian arts and not really look at the western arts. A few things happen pretty consistently. These arts are often looked down upon because they're just sports Or, as I stated above, they see two conditioned pro's go at it for a long time and assume the art is not powerful. I was guilty of the same thing. Until I got tapped by a BJJ blue in under 20 seconds. I've fought boxers a few times too. I wont go as far as saying I wouldn't do it again, but it's not on my list of favorite activities.

I read a report somewhere that a right cross from a pro heavyweight is about the equivalent of getting clocked in the head with a 20 pound sledgehammer swung by a 200 pound man. Knowing what a cross from a 170 pound amateur pro feels like, I don't think that's too far off the mark.

If you want to appreciate what a boxer is capable of, you really do need to step in the ring with one. I guarantee you will have a new found respect for the sweet science.

As far as the original question goes, I agree. I put my money on the grappler, if he knows hoe to cover and clinch. But there's no guarantee on that by any case. One crisp jab is enough to open you up to that combo, and once he gets in, he WILL set you up for that knockout shotwith a quickness.

Most actions of men can be explained by observing a pack of dogs. Not wild dogs, just neighborhood dogs who all scurry under the fence on the same night and set off together to reclaim a glimmer of the glory their species possessed before domestication.

[JerryLove]

I was not picking on a boxers skills. I have played with boxers and have a great respect both for their power and their experience pulling off their material against resisting opponents.

My only comment (which fell into a line of reasoning I had professed in the past) was that when one person wants to keep punching range and the other wants to close. The one closing is at an advantage.

That said, there is the act of closing where the wrestler is going to be functionally useless (remember, the question was on pure strikers vs pure grapplers, whatever those two are). If he survives that (as competition has shown he is likely to do) then the situation reverses. Without *any* grappling skills, the striker is going to be unable to put up a realistic defense at that point.

This of course assumes that both are relatively equal at their respective skills. A guy with 2 wrestling lessons is going to get dropped by a professional boxer on the shoot.

I think you and I actually are agreeing with one another. Further, I don't think (as I mentioned originally) that there really is a "pure striker" or "pure grappler". I did not pick boxing and wrestling out of some disrespect for wester arts, rather because they were the closest to "pure striking" and "pure wrestling" I could think of.

[Water Dragon]

Yup, sounds like we do agree. One thing I'd like to point out to the masses though. I've never seen a UFC or Pride fight with a boxer who I would consider worth a . The game looks different when the boxer's on point.

Jerry, since you've fought a boxer and no doubt have seen some of the posts around here, I'm pretty sure you know what got my goat on this one. ;)

Most actions of men can be explained by observing a pack of dogs. Not wild dogs, just neighborhood dogs who all scurry under the fence on the same night and set off together to reclaim a glimmer of the glory their species possessed before domestication.

[BAI HE]

Western boxing is soooo underrated! These guys will murder and frustrate you with jabs and then blow you up with a power shot.

Ma's think of them as primitives and one dimensional fighters, that is a woeful misconception. I have yet to see an MMA or K-1 fighter that can throw with a rated american boxer.

Western stylists are some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. The road work, conditioning and grind of sparring day-to-day make them some of the most formidable combatants in the world. These guys are used to close quarter combat reflexively and endurance wise. They are hard to hurt and will not need to land much to bury the average MA. If all MA's were as disciplined as "western" boxers the bar could then truly be raised.

It's nice to see the those guys get respect and I thank you for it.

[Water Dragon]

I found that out the first time I got tripled up on a jab. snap, snap, snap and...

Well I think you know what happened next. ;)

Well, that and the fact that every competant teacher I've ever met has a healthy respect for the sweet science.

Most actions of men can be explained by observing a pack of dogs. Not wild dogs, just neighborhood dogs who all scurry under the fence on the same night and set off together to reclaim a glimmer of the glory their species possessed before domestication.

[LEGEND]

The problem once again a good grappler vs. good striker is what JERRY said...a good striker needs to unleash his strikes and get a KO...a good grappler needs to take the guy down! There's been several PRO FIGHTERs in MMA...nobody in the top 10 that has been taken down by the NOT EVEN THE TOP 10 grapplers lol. So if u're looking at the PURE aspect of fighting styles...a good grappler usually has a better chance to takedown a good striker.

When u talk about MMA...since u're mixing the system...a good striker needs to know counter takedown stuff...a good grappler needs to know how to avoid getting hit hard while coming in...GAME CHANGES.

A

[fmann]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have a couple of questions about this hypothetical scenario:

1. If the striker gets taken down by the grappler, does he stop striking? I mean what's to keep the striker from striking (fists, feet, elbows, etc.) from the ground, interrupting (the key word) the grappler, and allowing himself to stand back up? After all, he's a superior striker - in my mind that means being able to strike in all positions and knowing how to make an opening for a strike.

2. If the grappler is standing up, does he stop grappling? If he's a superior grappler, he knows how to deal with striking w/o striking.

I was thinking in this case, it would be even.

[Dark Knight]

In one of the early UFC's Melton Bowen showed up. he was a heavey weight fighter, held a couple titles. Steve Jennum (Who I dont consider a top NHB fighter) took Bowen down and put him in an armber. Steve got hit hard and hurt, but still was able to take him down.

If you are not training for takedowns you will not defend well against them.

[JerryLove]

To really know how to strike while being grappled requires some level of grappling skill.

Unless you can get a first or second hit knockout (very rare when both fighters are trained and ready) then you have to deal with the grapple attempt.

You don't neccessairily have to be a "better" grappler, but if you have no grappling skills you will loose all control of relative positions right after the grapple starts. Hard to punch, kick, knee, etc. from a crucifix or back-mount.

[yin lion]

all of you who argue that eather side; "no dude the boxer could kill him." or the "No way gracie would put him in a leg lock." It's all depends on which art you take now confidence is good but to a certain point. You can't think like that you will only be beat by a more cautious fighter.

Not all the time but most of the time a fighter that fights on his feet will win a fight that starts with him on his feet. Likewise a fight that starts on the ground will be the grapplers fight, and I repeat most of the time.

Grapplers always say "Oh you'll be on the ground eating durt" or some dumb pointless comment. In the same way the kung fu fighters will say something like you will be knocked out in one strike. Now if you would all stop living in your heads you would realize that a tai chi, bagua, or other CMA fighters know a lot and I mean a LOT of things to do when someone is rushing them, and get this all you strictly grapplers tai chi and bagua contain a LOT of grappling skills from get this boys and children STANDING positions. There are even COUNTER GRAPPLING skills that would leave a ground fighter in a problamatic place. Look if you want to win you need grappling, blocking, striking, walking (kneeling), and evading skills. see what you know not assume what others don't know.

ok, right. I need to get that off my chest this same "my style vs yours" is comming up too much.

you must unlearn what you have learned then and only then will you be wise and have knolage

[JerryLove]

"Now if you would all stop living in your heads you would realize that a tai chi, bagua, or other CMA fighters know a lot and I mean a LOT of things to do when someone is rushing them, and get this all you strictly grapplers tai chi and bagua contain a LOT of grappling skills from get this boys and children STANDING positions."

That would be interesting if the discussion were on Taiji or Pagua. But the question was "pure striker"(tm) vs "pure grappler"(tm) whatever those are.

No one with half a working braincell has argued that CMA do not grapple (though some might argue how well). And I am not sure what the point of the question was in the first place. But my answer remains, the "pure grappler"(tm) would win except in the unlikely event he was knocked unconsious during the shoot (it happens sometimes).

[Merryprankster]

This subject hurts my head.

fmann,

Striking while on your back, in an inferior position, is an extremely difficult thing to do with any sort of real power. The shots you can throw are annoying, but not show stoppers. This is the problem.

If a pure striker knows NO grappling, and they are taken down, it will be virtually impossible to wind up in a superior position against even a mediocre grappler of similar athletic ability or size. If, by some freak chance, the gods of combat smile upon the striker for a brief moment, rest assured the grappler will gain control of the ground situation very quickly.

The problem, as stated before, is that a striker with absolutely no grappling knowledge must somehow keep the distance and do damage to or knock out the grappler before he closes the gap.

We have seen that skilled strikers who have the ability to knock their opponents flat quickly frequently DON'T, even when the opponent is not particularly good at striking, or has no experience at all. This is not a knock on the striker... it's HARD to make disabling contact on the first go round and flurry even if you train that way.

I would also add that 'pure' grapplers are usually trained in two sets of skills: stand-up grappling and groundwork. 'Pure' strikers typically train only one set: striking against a standing opponent. Takedowns are an art as highly refined as any other and just as valid as a form of stand-up fighting as punching and kicking. It's just different :)

Just for the record, the successful strikers in MMA comps typically "sprawl and brawl." They have learned to use takedown counters to stay on their feet and then do damage to the opponent while he is recovering from the failed takedown attempt.

I'm going to make this absurdly long post even longer. Here are some things that typically do NOT work against a decent shot/clinch.

1. Elbows to the base of the neck.
2. Punches to the back of the head.
3. Knee to the head on the way in.
4. Side step. (You don't know HOW many times I've heard this...)
5. Atempting to simply redirect the persons head away from your body to avoid the takedown.
6. Small joint manipulations.
7. Fishhooks.
8. Eye pokes, gouges, and rakes.
9. Throat tears.

Just for the record, please don't try and snap somebody's neck when they shoot in. Despite some insistance on the part of several people I've met, this typically does not work. It's much harder than it seems. A sharp upward thrust of the hips and twist of your arms might strain a muscle but not break bones. If you do this, you will have given your hips to the shooter, meaning you are in prime position to get serious air time before you hit the ground. And if anybody tried to rip MY head off, I can assure you I would make them land face first as hard as I could.
Can the above stuff work? Yup. Are they high percentage? Nope. You're more likely to wind up on your back with a very angry human beating your face in.

All of that said, a good striker with decent takedown defenses stands as good a chance as anybody.

BTW, a trained grappler does not "rush" his opponent. A takedown is far different than the clumsy head down wide armed football tackle thing everybody seems to assume they'll get attacked with in the street.

[Scott]

Merryprankster=smart.

What about stepping... backwards?

Or how about this seldom heard of Wing Chun technique... crouching =P

That's an honest question. Would it be possible to sink into a crouch when said grappler goes for a leg shoot? Your body (which can strike) would be where your legs were. The problem with getting your legs stolen from you is that you can't hit him without unbalancing yourself anyway.. but what if you were already down there with him?


-Scott

"I'm just an actor, just like Robert f***ing Redford when I say those stupid words that they expect me to say."--Art Alexakis

[fmann]

Thanks for your reply.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Striking while on your back, in an inferior position, is an extremely difficult thing to do with any sort of real power. The shots you can throw are annoying, but not show stoppers. This is the problem. [/quote]

Yeah, that's why I used the word "interrupt" -- striking from a bad position is not viable as a "knockout" tactic.

But at least we both agree that:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All of that said, a good striker with decent takedown defenses stands as good a chance as anybody. [/quote]

I find the problem really in semantics. For me a striker that knows body positioning on the ground and can reverse positions, holds, etc., but does so in order to return to striking is still a pure striker.

[Merryprankster]

Thanks for calling me smart! I'm in need of an ego shot! :)

Crouching WILL stop a shot, but it has to be done properly. It's called "changing levels" in wrestling. By doing this, you remove the ability of the shooter to get under your center of gravity. However, you can't crounch in the way you normally think of, like crouching a little behind an object. It's more of a bend at the knees, not in the waist thing. Boxers can throw effective punches from the crouch, so why not wing chunners? :)

Stepping backwards will emphatically not work. In order to step, you have to pick one leg up and move it back. This exposes the other leg. A grappler will be delighted you did this. You really need to get your legs out of the way. Sprawling is an excellent way of doing this. There are also a myriad of counters once they are in, but almost all of them revolve around getting your hips down and back to extend your opponents arms so he can't pull you in. I know people think wrestlers are all about brute strength and speed, but a good sprawl will show you leverage is equally as important. If you really want to train takedown defenses, find a wrestler and ask them to teach you how to sprawl. A good sprawl will stop 90% of leg attacks.

Ah, fmann, I guess it is semantics. I consider knowing positioning on the ground, "grappling." For instance, a boxing or kickboxing match is pure striking. Grappling of any sort is either illegal or grounds for a restart. Use of grappling to reverse positioning and holds is grappling regardless of who uses it IMO. Would you consider somebody who uses punches and kicks to set up the takedown as a pure grappler? Just my thoughts.

[fiercest tiger]

taking into concideration that he hasnt already grabbed you or you are both going down, a grappler can be taken out easily if you have the time to set up the technique. but if you were rushed from behind and taken down then its another story. NHB you can set up your counter to a grappler, but half the people freeze and then its to late in those matches.

i reckon most schools teach a boxing range and kicking range in there kung fu school and are alittle scared of close range techniques to use. of course not every school but half of what i see just do forms and drills like punching the air..lol without the contact in training they arent really learning anything! Thats why REAL KUNG FU schools have conditioning, sensitivity, reflex and timing drills. pad and bag work as well as all fighting ranges!!!

my 2 cents worth :cool:

come & visit us!
http://home.iprimus.com.au/ykm
yaukungmun@hotmail.com

[fmann]

In my mind:

The superior "pure striker" would know how to get position on the ground to strike, work out of a bad position/reversal to get back to striking. Basically knowing how to strike from all angles, positions, situations. Does he know how to do armbars, chokes, etc.? No, but knows how to get out of them.

The superior "pure grappler" would have a stand up game that gets him to his ground game. This could be throws, bobbing/slipping strikes to enter, parrying/covering leading in to joint locks/throws/takedowns, etc.. Basically, he knows how to execute his technique regardless of the situation. Does he punch, kick, etc. in this hypothetical match? No, but he knows how to deal with them.

I'm just stating this for this hypothetical match up of a pure striker and pure grappler. In reality, I don't think there is such a thing.

[JerryLove]

"The superior "pure striker" would know how to get position on the ground to strike, work out of a bad position/reversal to get back to striking."

That requires the manipulation of the opponent's limbs and body. By definition, grappling.

"Basically knowing how to strike from all angles, positions, situations."

Given free reign to grapple, there are plent of positions from which striking is not an option.

"Does he know how to do armbars, chokes, etc.? No, but knows how to get out of them."

You cannot escape without grappling to do it. And you cannot expect to escape without some understanding of the technique.

I am not talking about KF vs BJJ (or seomthing innane like that). If your KF is not teaching some level of grappling / counter-grappling get the heck out and find another school. The question was on some odd abstracts.

BTW, while a very risky thing to do, I have seen knees to the head work against a shoot (usuaully by resulting in a KO).

[fmann]

I agree with you Jerry, that this discussion is on abstract concepts. And I think that for this discussion, my defintions are different in their scope from your definitions. But I think we agree that...

A stand up fighter would need some exposure to grappling to be able to counter it. And grapplers already train to enter/counter against standup fighters, so they have exposure to striking.

Therefore, I agree with you: a striker that knows no ground work against a grappler, the grappler has a slight edge.

[LEGEND]

Too be honest...that's what the first several UFC's showed...a little guy taking down and submitting bigger strikers...

A

[JerryLove]

See, and they though us non MMAers didn't pay attention ;-)

[BAI HE]

Watch the Vanderlei Silva clips posted by Watchman or Sherdog.com.
He displays some very effective tactics against a variety of prople trying to tie him up and grapple. Though, He has obviousy trained in grappling. He reverses, rises and strikes with vicious effeciency.

[Merryprankster]

Precisely Bai He. He learned "countergrappling" techniques that put him in a position to "sprawl and brawl."

The point is you need to be able to stay on your feet. To do that, you need to ensure you practice takedown defenses. A "pure striker," being an abstract concept, wouldn't practice these at all and consequently wouldn't be very effective at countering the takedown. If can't stay on his feet, striking only becomes a problem.

Mo Smith is very good at the sprawl and brawl as well....

[Merryprankster]

Oops. Sorry. That should read: If he can't stay on his feet than knowing striking only becomes a problem.