A Man vs A Woman
On a sidenote, what do you practice?
The man tells the women to fufill her duty and she starts cooking.....
Woman vs Man. I say Man
girl wins
@Owie: Great grapplers defeat great strikers 90% of the time. Look at the first few ufc tournaments. 6 of the first 7 tournaments were won by grapplers. The ufc proved time and time again that grappling will prove superior to striking in one on one combat. The first ufc tournaments were style matchups, with experts in their style taking on masters of different forms of combat. It has been shown that grappling proves superior On a sidenote, what do you practice?
This isn't a UFC fight this is a street fight that takes place in a warehouse, and person who was only a grappler couldn't defeat someone who was a striker outside a ring with no rules. This fight has no rules and is not in a ring.
woman....
@TheCerealKillz said:AS LONG AS I GET MY FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODThe man tells the women to fufill her duty and she starts cooking.....I'll strangle you -_-
:D
Or another way to think about it; if grappling were really as vastly superior to striking as you claim, then all anybody would do now in the UFC would be grappling, but they don't. In fact, several champions that come to my mind have been known more for their striking than their grappling (although most of them really have both, to varying degrees), like the aforementioned Liddell, Shogun Rua, Anderson Silva, Rich Franklin, Rampage Jackson, Forest Griffin, Rashad Evans, Lyoto Machida, and others. And now that I think of it, GSP demolished Matt Hughes, a dedicated and decorated grappler, with vastly superior striking.
So no, striking is not obsolete in modern MMA in the way it sounds like you are suggesting. If anything, what the early UFCs were really good for was showing the pit falls of overconfidence and ignorance of your opponent. People lost to BJJ because they didn't really know what it could do, and because a lot of them were guys with big egos who had the simplistic "if he shoots in I'll just punch him and it'll be over" game plan, which of course is so simple the BJJ guys actually thought of it too and trained to counter it. Once people started to gain a greater appreciation for that art, and pay more attention to what it could do and that, yes, it will mess you up if given the chance, the apparent gap started to diminish.
Basically, the Gracies were ready for the strikers. The strikers were not ready for the Gracies, but thought they were. Then they realized they were wrong and started to actually train themselves to defend against BJJ, and they became more effective again. Of course, most of them also became less specialized and more rounded in the process, but then I don't think there are a lot of "pure" BJJ fighters in the UFC now either.
This is why James Tony lost to Couture (well, part of it). He was massively overconfident and just assumed he could win. Couture is very smart and knows to play to his opponent's weakness (grappling, in this case).
Also, even early UFC had rules in place that provided somewhat disproportionate protection for grapplers. There are lots of times when those fights go to the ground where the eyes, ears, nose, and throat are within easy grabbing distance, but obviously actually going for them (or biting) are against the rules (for good reason). Of course, the boxing gloves here would make that kind of gouging difficult if he keeps them on (although if they're put on in a professional manner, them taking them off during the fight is probably pretty much impossible).
In regards to your videos, the first looks like an amateur match between two guys of about the same size. The grappler won that time. That really doesn't prove that grappling in general always wins, or even that that particular grappler would always win against that particular striker. That's why rematches sometimes have different outcomes. Consider Sylvia vs. Arlovski 1 compared to Sylvia vs Arlovski 2 and 3.
The second video looked like they were just playing around, and the grappler looked physically larger. Boxing doesn't really scale down to the "play" level the way grappling does though. Boxing relies on hitting someone hard enough to hurt them to the point they quit, or their body gives out. If you're "playing," that means you're not going that hard, which means the fight will basically last until someone gets bored or tired. Grappling translates better to the "play" level because it relies on getting your opponent into positions where they are completely immobile, or where victory is basically assured, but where you don't actually have to hurt the person if you don't want to (or at least if they tap like they're supposed to).
Of course, I could put up highlight videos of Roy Jones Jr. or Prince Naseem which shows two guys with a speed and power that almost anyone would have trouble dealing with, but then they were some of the best. But that's another issue that tends to come up in "style vs. style" debates, whether it's Jujutsu vs. MMA or Shotokan vs. Tae Kwon Do, which is the athleticism and skill of the individual. There are great boxers and there are crappy boxers, just like there are great Jukoka and crappy Judoka.
And kind of a side note: I'm pretty sure jiujitsu, jujitsu, and jujutsu are just different ways of romanizing the same japanese word. Since the language in Brazil is (I believe) Portuguese, which uses the latin alphabet already, it makes sense that they just picked one particular transliteration and stuck with it. But just because BJJ consistently uses the spelling "jiujitsu" doesn't mean that that spelling always applies to BJJ and is no longer appropriate for the traditional Japanese art.
@Owie: Great grapplers defeat great strikers 90% of the time. Look at the first few ufc tournaments. 6 of the first 7 tournaments were won by grapplers. The ufc proved time and time again that grappling will prove superior to striking in one on one combat. The first ufc tournaments were style matchups, with experts in their style taking on masters of different forms of combat. It has been shown that grappling proves superior On a sidenote, what do you practice?
I agree that grapplers often win in UFC. But this isn't in a ring, and more variables come into play. When your're in the battlefield, you don't really want to be on the ground, grappling, for instance. This fight we're talking about here isn't a battlefield, I'm just giving an example.
Also, as Freefa11 mentions, strikes don't necessarily scale down to tournament-level play. You can't break elbows or knees in UFC, for instance, which in a real win-or-die fight would be at the top of my list. Of course, limb breaks could technically fall into either a striking or a grappling style of fighting. So I still think a life or death match between a highly-skilled striker and a highly-skilled grappler could go either way. (Even if this is a boxer in this case, who's not really going to try to break limbs, he is still trained at hitting specific targets.)
I do Hung Ga kung fu.
On a side note, how do you quote more than one person? Just quote it and then copy it into a second message?
@Freefa11 said:
@phliuy: Chuck Liddell basically proved this wrong. He was incredibly dominant against grapplers, and didn't get taken out of the game until finally going up against a superior striker (Rampage). Or another way to think about it; if grappling were really as vastly superior to striking as you claim, then all anybody would do now in the UFC would be grappling, but they don't. In fact, several champions that come to my mind have been known more for their striking than their grappling (although most of them really have both, to varying degrees), like the aforementioned Liddell, Shogun Rua, Anderson Silva, Rich Franklin, Rampage Jackson, Forest Griffin, Rashad Evans, Lyoto Machida, and others. And now that I think of it, GSP demolished Matt Hughes, a dedicated and decorated grappler, with vastly superior striking.GSP is a BJJ black belt. Anderson silva is a bjj blackbelt. Shogun rua is a blackbelt in bjj. Lyoto machida is a blackbelt in BJJ. Rashad evans is a black belt. Rich franklin is a brown belt. Forrest Griffin is a brown belt. GSP is furthermore the best mma. wrestler in the ufc.
@Freefa11 said:
So no, striking is not obsolete in modern MMA in the way it sounds like you are suggesting. If anything, what the early UFCs were really good for was showing the pit falls of overconfidence and ignorance of your opponent. People lost to BJJ because they didn't really know what it could do, and because a lot of them were guys with big egos who had the simplistic "if he shoots in I'll just punch him and it'll be over" game plan, which of course is so simple the BJJ guys actually thought of it too and trained to counter it. Once people started to gain a greater appreciation for that art, and pay more attention to what it could do and that, yes, it will mess you up if given the chance, the apparent gap started to diminish. Basically, the Gracies were ready for the strikers. The strikers were not ready for the Gracies, but thought they were. Then they realized they were wrong and started to actually train themselves to defend against BJJ, and they became more effective again. Of course, most of them also became less specialized and more rounded in the process, but then I don't think there are a lot of "pure" BJJ fighters in the UFC now either.The people who trained for the original ufc were not dumb, in fact many brought in top level wrestlers to to help them train. However, it was not just bjj that proved superior, but wrestling, shootfighting (mma), judo, and sambo all proved superior to pure striking. The stylistic mathcups proved time and time again that grappling was superior to striking in one on one matchups. You can go to sherdog and look on any striking vs grappling forum if you want proof.
@Freefa11 said:
This is why James Tony lost to Couture (well, part of it). He was massively overconfident and just assumed he could win. Couture is very smart and knows to play to his opponent's weakness (grappling, in this case).Also, even early UFC had rules in place that provided somewhat disproportionate protection for grapplers. There are lots of times when those fights go to the ground where the eyes, ears, nose, and throat are within easy grabbing distance, but obviously actually going for them (or biting) are against the rules (for good reason). Of course, the boxing gloves here would make that kind of gouging difficult if he keeps them on (although if they're put on in a professional manner, them taking them off during the fight is probably pretty much impossible).James toney stated that he almost exclusively trained grappling for the fight, but he didn't have enough time to get to randy's level. The early UFC had NO rules. You could eye gouge. you could hit to the crotch. you could hairpull. there were no rules.
@Freefa11 said:
In regards to your videos, the first looks like an amateur match between two guys of about the same size. The grappler won that time. That really doesn't prove that grappling in general always wins, or even that that particular grappler would always win against that particular striker. That's why rematches sometimes have different outcomes. Consider Sylvia vs. Arlovski 1 compared to Sylvia vs Arlovski 2 and 3. The second video looked like they were just playing around, and the grappler looked physically larger. Boxing doesn't really scale down to the "play" level the way grappling does though. Boxing relies on hitting someone hard enough to hurt them to the point they quit, or their body gives out. If you're "playing," that means you're not going that hard, which means the fight will basically last until someone gets bored or tired. Grappling translates better to the "play" level because it relies on getting your opponent into positions where they are completely immobile, or where victory is basically assured, but where you don't actually have to hurt the person if you don't want to (or at least if they tap like they're supposed to).when you "play in boxing", you doo timing. Timing is where you throw fast punches, but pull them at the last second, so that all the opponent feels is a light tap. Look, if you want more proof of the stylistic matchups, google jiujitsu vs anything striking. You will see that the grappler wins 90% of the time.
@Freefa11 said:
Of course, I could put up highlight videos of Roy Jones Jr. or Prince Naseem which shows two guys with a speed and power that almost anyone would have trouble dealing with, but then they were some of the best. But that's another issue that tends to come up in "style vs. style" debates, whether it's Jujutsu vs. MMA or Shotokan vs. Tae Kwon Do, which is the athleticism and skill of the individual. There are great boxers and there are crappy boxers, just like there are great Jukoka and crappy Judoka.And kind of a side note: I'm pretty sure jiujitsu, jujitsu, and jujutsu are just different ways of romanizing the same japanese word. Since the language in Brazil is (I believe) Portuguese, which uses the latin alphabet already, it makes sense that they just picked one particular transliteration and stuck with it. But just because BJJ consistently uses the spelling "jiujitsu" doesn't mean that that spelling always applies to BJJ and is no longer appropriate for the traditional Japanese art.
Jiujitsu, jujitsu and jujutsu ARE romanized versions of the japanese art; however, Brazilians spell it Jiu-jitsu, because that is how Helio gracie chose to spell it years ago. usually when people talk about jiujitsu, they are talking about BJJ, however, you have to use the context to figure out if they actually mean the ancient art. Ancient japanese jujutsu is stil going on today, the clubs and groups will spell it without the brazilian in front. However, the ancient art is recognzed to be spelled jujutsu.
It's interchangeable.
to sum up, I did not say that striking is obsolete in current ufc, i said that in pure style matchups, it will almost always fall to grappling. Go to any mma website's forum and look this up, almost everyone will be in my favor. It has also been proven time and time again in both the amateur and professional levels. You say that the strikers were cocky enough to think they could handle grapplers, yet you say the grapplers trained in striking because they didn't want to bea at a disadvantage? Do you see the fault in logic here? if the grapplers knew their weakness in striking, the strikers would obviously know their weakness in grappling. You cannot use logic for one group of people but not use it for the other group.
You are obviously a UFC fan; do you also practice mma?
@phliuy said:The original ten or so UFC tournaments proved that just because you don't want to be on the ground doesn't mean you have a choice. The good grappler will keep the good striker on the ground, because the grappler knows how to do so. the striker just doesn't know the techniques to get off the ground. You can't just squirm around or power out, as you weill know from experience. If you've ever faced a good grappler, there is almost nothing you can do to get off your back if he chooses to keep you there. He may be able to do nothing else besides keep you down, but you will stay there if he wants you to. Breaking any body part in the ufc is perfectly legal, it is the duty of the man being submitted to tap out to indicate that he is hurt. If he does not tap, you are completely within the rules to snap his arm. go to youtube and look up any striking vs grappling match. 90% of the time, the grappler wins. It has proved superior to pure striking. I would direct you again to the video of Art jimmerson vs Royce gracie, or Gerard Gordeau vs royce gracie in the first ufc. Both gordeau and jimmerson are highly accomplished strikers, one a savate champion, the other a top ten, world class boxer, and both fall easily to royce gracie.@Owie: Great grapplers defeat great strikers 90% of the time. Look at the first few ufc tournaments. 6 of the first 7 tournaments were won by grapplers. The ufc proved time and time again that grappling will prove superior to striking in one on one combat. The first ufc tournaments were style matchups, with experts in their style taking on masters of different forms of combat. It has been shown that grappling proves superior On a sidenote, what do you practice?I agree that grapplers often win in UFC. But this isn't in a ring, and more variables come into play. When your're in the battlefield, you don't really want to be on the ground, grappling, for instance. This fight we're talking about here isn't a battlefield, I'm just giving an example. Also, as Freefa11 mentions, strikes don't necessarily scale down to tournament-level play. You can't break elbows or knees in UFC, for instance, which in a real win-or-die fight would be at the top of my list. Of course, limb breaks could technically fall into either a striking or a grappling style of fighting. So I still think a life or death match between a highly-skilled striker and a highly-skilled grappler could go either way. (Even if this is a boxer in this case, who's not really going to try to break limbs, he is still trained at hitting specific targets.) I do Hung Ga kung fu. On a side note, how do you quote more than one person? Just quote it and then copy it into a second message?
Quoting moee than one person is complicated, Basically, if you want to quote multiple parts of someone's commentary, you have to click "quote" every time, and delete the parts you don't want. You have to make sure you left space underneath the quote, or else you will end up typing in the quote font and format. To quote or reply to more than one person, just click quote or reply more than once. Try doing it on the same posting, or else you will have to refresh the page.
nevermind
I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I do think that grapplers can often have the advantage, at least if the striker isn't able to get an immediate knockout.
When I say it can be a disadvantage to be on the ground in the battlefield, what I meant (intentionally straying from the OP) was that in an actual large-scale hand to hand battle, where there are multiple fighters, horses, etc. running around, for instance a medieval Chinese battle, it's to the obvious advantage of the participants to stay on their feet. Similarly, if a fight starts in a modern bar between two people, often one guy's friends are going to jump in too, and then again mobility is to the benefit of the guy who's there on his own. Otherwise he's going to get overwhelmed/cornered too easily.
I didn't know that breaks were legal in UFC. Good to know.
And thanks for the info about multiple-quoting.
Male wins due to Y chromosome.
Judo is simply not an effective combat martial art, it is more for self defense. Furthermore, pressure point techniques havent been verified to work at all, they are a thing of hollywood and comic books. Good old fashioned punches and kicks have proven time and time again to be the most effective.
Someone should say this to Karo Parisiyan. He's made a good MMA career with Judo being his primary martial art.
If you have any questions about anything vine related, you can pretty much ask anyone. I'm still new here myself, and there's always a mod around that I can go to. Welcome to the vine, mr. owie
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment