MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   Standup Technique (http://www.mmaforum.com/standup-technique/)
-   -   Grappling harder then Striking? (http://www.mmaforum.com/standup-technique/71643-grappling-harder-then-striking.html)

Choke_Wire 02-11-2010 04:19 PM

Grappling harder then Striking?
 
I saw a thread on sherdog saying this. MAny people agreed that striking takes ALOT less time to learn then good Grappling.

Maybe im bised but i say no way.

For me graplling came so natural, just that fact that to can close your eyes and do just as good maybe better then your eyes open. Plus you can no almost no sub and still come out on top if you have more cardio or better postision. A rear naked choke is all you need

With striking you need to know movment, foot work, angles, timming, speed, felxiblilty and on top of all that you NEED to know how to take a shot and give one right back. I was rasied to learn to get hit and hit right back...SHOT FOR SHOT.

anyway thats just my take on it, ive been striker since i was 8 years old and im proud of it.

HitOrGetHit 02-11-2010 04:23 PM

There is no definite answer. It is all opinion based. Some people enjoy grappling better and they will work harder and longer at it because of that. Some people are just more comfortable striking, so it comes easier to them. I personally developed my striking a lot faster than my grappling. It just came more naturally to me than grappling. Even though I like grappling a lot more than striking, I am always better at learning new striking techniques than I am learning new grappling techniques.

It depends entirely on the person. :thumbsup:

Tomislav III 02-14-2010 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choke_Wire (Post 1111447)
I saw a thread on sherdog saying this. MAny people agreed that striking takes ALOT less time to learn then good Grappling.

Maybe im bised but i say no way.

For me graplling came so natural, just that fact that to can close your eyes and do just as good maybe better then your eyes open. Plus you can no almost no sub and still come out on top if you have more cardio or better postision. A rear naked choke is all you need

With striking you need to know movment, foot work, angles, timming, speed, felxiblilty and on top of all that you NEED to know how to take a shot and give one right back. I was rasied to learn to get hit and hit right back...SHOT FOR SHOT.

anyway thats just my take on it, ive been striker since i was 8 years old and im proud of it.

I don't think it's about it being harder or easier, just that MMA is biased towards grappling/wrestling.

Just look at the terrible striking you see in professional MMA. It's not because grappling is a superior technique, I can tell you it isn't. It's because strikers can make a lot more money doing boxing than they can at MMA, so to them it's a really pointless exercise to join an MMA organization.

B

JimmyJames 02-14-2010 08:12 PM

I trained as a professional boxer for 5 years in my early 20's.

During my late 20's I also trained in BJJ for a few months and I will say that grappling is much much harder than boxing.

There is also much more to learn with grappling than boxing. At least this is the way I see it.

JimmyJames 02-14-2010 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomislav III (Post 1113892)
I don't think it's about it being harder or easier, just that MMA is biased towards grappling/wrestling.

Just look at the terrible striking you see in professional MMA. It's not because grappling is a superior technique, I can tell you it isn't. It's because strikers can make a lot more money doing boxing than they can at MMA, so to them it's a really pointless exercise to join an MMA organization.

B

While this is true ^^^^^^^ there is a difference in MMA striking and boxing.

With MMA striking you have to be more aware of your opponent since you can be taken down. If a boxer tried to fight a MMA bout using a boxing stance he would be taken down very very easily.

With MMA and takedowns a striker has to be ready for a takedown and fighting in a traditional boxing stance isnt an option. And this will also lead to sloppy striking.

Also people need to stop with the comparison between boxing and MMA striking since boxing is only a small part of MMA striking.

Tomislav III 02-16-2010 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyJames (Post 1113902)
While this is true ^^^^^^^ there is a difference in MMA striking and boxing.

With MMA striking you have to be more aware of your opponent since you can be taken down. If a boxer tried to fight a MMA bout using a boxing stance he would be taken down very very easily.

With MMA and takedowns a striker has to be ready for a takedown and fighting in a traditional boxing stance isnt an option. And this will also lead to sloppy striking.

Also people need to stop with the comparison between boxing and MMA striking since boxing is only a small part of MMA striking.

The stance isn't great, right. But the head movement, foot movement, hand speed, and even punching power are just absolutely lacking in MMA today. The only person I've seen to really display the skills to be considered a good striker, IMO, is Anderson Silva.


Possibly Fedor.

JimmyJames 02-16-2010 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomislav III (Post 1114896)
The stance isn't great, right. But the head movement, foot movement, hand speed, and even punching power are just absolutely lacking in MMA today. The only person I've seen to really display the skills to be considered a good striker, IMO, is Anderson Silva.


Possibly Fedor.


Fedor has the best head movement of anybody in MMA IMO. Just watch the Arlovski fight. Arlovski couldnt land anything that mattered.

There are reasons for all of this though.

MMartist simply arent boxers, so their skills will be lacking compared to a boxer.

I bet all the BBJ people shit on MMArtist for their lack of technique in BBJ. And the wrestlers probably shit on the MMA wrestlers. Mauy Thai fighters will the same.

Reason being is that boxing, bjj, mauy thai, and wrestling are just a small part of what is needed for MMA. I would rather be a well rounded fighter in MMA then somebody who is great at one or two disciplines and horrible in everything else.

As for the great strikers....... well if I was such a great boxer then I would be fighting in boxing since that is where the money is for the fighters. It's as simple as that. Anderson Silva is just a freak case in MMA.

xeberus 02-16-2010 10:32 AM

I think that's a fair statement.

I could throw a punch or two before I ever stepped foot in a gym. I've never been able to grapple for shit. But striking does take years and years to fully develop. I've been in either boxing or kickboxing for almost 10 years now, I still make mistakes and I'm still learning shit.

CaseyBeast 02-17-2010 02:48 PM

IMO to be good at striking you have to also have some natural abilitys and natural mental abilitys or you will never be great wich seems to be the case in most of MMa fighters.Grappling on the other hand and again is just my opinion can be taught and learned the whole process so maybe it is harder to learn because striking your natural abilities help you but to me striking is way more technical some OK at striking is never going to do a damn thing to someone who is good but grapling if you are strong sometimes you can get the upper hand in grappling.

Squirrelfighter 02-17-2010 06:51 PM

I think that it depends onthe person, not in that some people are naturally pre-dsposed to fighting skill or athleticism, that's unrelated to which form of fighting is harder IMO.

I think it has more to do with how your brain is wired. When it comes to ground, everything is tremendously technical. Moving, shifting weight, planting feet, rolling on angles. And that's just gaining position. Incorporate subs and you add another layer of complexity of technical motion.

When it comes to striking. Its much more of a fluid motion relying much more heavily on the imaginative side of the brain, instead of the technical. (Right or left, can't remember which is which) Striking does have a lot of technical movements, footwork and such, but you have to be able to improvisize and react much more often than anything else.

That's just my opinion. Tell me I'm dumb or wrong, whatever you feel.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2