Grappling vs Striking

[IrishCanadian25]

It's more than just Roddy Piper vs Mr. T. It's bigger than Rocky Balboa vs Thunderlips.

The world of Mixed Martial Arts gives us the age old questions - grappler vs striker. Which do you prefer? Who is better?

With MMA, you cannot just limit to "Wrestler vs Boxer" since kicks and knees come into play, as do various non-pinning submission holds. For your money, do you feel a striker is a more effective fighter because of their ability to stage an attack from a long range with more quickness? Or do you favor the grappler for their ability to control their opponent and beat them in a variety of ways without exposing him or herself to counterattacks?

 

[jmt225]

The only time a striker can beat a wrestler is if the striker has wrestling ability. Look at Chuck Liddell. The only reason he did so well during his hot streak against wrestlers like Tito, Randy and others is because of his takedown defense, which is a huge part of wrestling (Chuck was a wrestler in college). Strikers can only win fights if they know how to keep an opponent from taking him down. That's the only way. Floyd Mayweather, as great of a boxer as he is, could never beat Clay Guida in a fight. Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali in their primes could never beat Brock Lesnar in a fight, because there's no way any of those boxers know how to stop a takedown and know what to do once they're taken down to protect themselves.

As far as to which I prefer watching, I think like most fans, strikers. I think pretty much anyone would enjoy a stand-up war more so then a wrestling contest. But still… the point remains that if a striker is facing a wrestler and can’t defend the take-down and has limited BJJ skills (which, thankfully, most of them today do know how to sprawl and do spend a lot of time practicing BJJ), then there’s no point in watching the fight, lol.