Everyone: Striking or Grappling?

I want to take a poll of sorts, my question is which to you think is the best for ("real") fighting? Striking or Grappling? I'm not asking about any specific martial art, but you may give any reasons or details you wish on why you chose one or the other.

Everyone: Striking or Grappling?
It is really a more complex question than it sounds on the surface, as there are a lot of factors to be considered and the answer may not be the same for everyone.





Ideally, either a striker or a grappler is going to have a significant advantage over an untrained fighter. Likewise, a good fighter is going to have some skills in both striking and grappling (like any MMA fighter for example).





Which should be the focus of training is going to depend on a number of factors including: size, strength, quickness, flexibility, and experience of the fighter.





Okay, have I waffled enough? If forced to pick one, I would have to go with grappling. Why? Studies of fights involving police officers have shown that "real" fights usually end up going to the ground. The grappler is not only prepared for that eventuality, but skilled in taking his opponent down so that he can play to his strengths. This is why many police agencies around the country (and around the world) are training their officers techniques that are primarily based on grappling.





Again, well rounded is best, but I will always put my money on the grappler.
Reply:Best are effective in real fighting if you know what you're doing. However, I would say striking. the reason is due to the fact that if you know where to hit someone, you can make that person really regret taking you on. One strike and it's all over. Grappling takes more work and effort. I'd rather hit once on the right spot, than take you down and break something. but this is my opinion.
Reply:Grappling
Reply:I choose striking





The reason is because you have to stick to what you know, and what I've done is karate, kickboxing and muay thai.





I understand and I'm aware of the benefits of both, but I love striking, and watching striking competitions.
Reply:You need both, but i would choose striking, it is the quickest way to end a conflict and hitting to the vital points would take out someone much larger than you or give you enough time to get away, also striking would work better against multiple opponents





but you need to learn at least some grapling moves, its not as easy as one is better than the other, if you shock someone with a strike this would be the best time to put a hold on them, and if the other guy has you in a hold you need to be able to get out of it





if you had to choose one or the other id go with striking but its so important to learn both its not funny
Reply:It would really depend ont he situation for me. I work at a hospitol, and if a patient or visitor got violent (which happens pretty often) there is no way I could just knock them around until they decided to stay down. A joint lock would be my best bet. If I know help is coming quickly, I would definitely use grappling moves rather than do something that could seriously injure some one.





If I was getting mugged or something it would be all strikes. I'll call the cops after the guy is on the ground and doesn't need to be restrained.





But I'm only 5'5" and about 120 lbs, so even if the situation called for grappling, I might use some strikes to "soften 'em up," as my sensei liked to call it. ;)
Reply:striking because falling on the ground is your last resort and its harder to intercept weapons
Reply:Really complex question, but on it's face, grappling. most people are clueless about groundfighting, whereas it doesn't take a genious to figure out how to punch somebody.
Reply:Striking by far. It is faster and more effective. Less chance to get out of it. Bang,, bang you're done!
Reply:Im primarily a striker. Boxing atemi-ryu ju jitsu and aikido i focus on striking. I loe it but that doesnt undermine the importance of grappling. I grapple with wrestlers all the time that way i can learn to tand back up if one of my fights go to the ground besides now you have aloit of high school wrestlers who know a lil but are clueless about striking whereas the grounds there home
Reply:There are good %26amp; bad about both. Grappling is better on the ground %26amp; in close. Striking is better against multiple attackers %26amp; gives you the option of being more proactive. I'm a striker (Tae Kwon Do) but I recognize the advantages of other styles. My main reason for not taking up a grappling style is my age. I'm 59 %26amp; falling down hurts %26amp; it takes forever to get back up.
Reply:Okay the best would be a mix of the two. But striking can end a fight a lot quicker
Reply:by fighting. aggressively it would have to be striking, spur of the moment decision maybe contained outburst of anger or self control, of loss of control of ones emotions.





but as people on here have said, for a more controlled situation, ie. use by police in a "civilized" manner, it would have to be grappling. because you have complete control of the ammount of pressure to use. I think once they stop wriggling in pain or when they turn blue to black...





where as in striking, different people have diferent tollerance for pain and a soft strike the nose to one person is a different feeling to another person.
Reply:Striking. If you are fighting more than one opponent do you want to roll around on the ground and be tied up? If you are fighting one opponent do you wnat to roll around on the ground?
Reply:Why not use both and become a more well-rounded fighter?
Reply:Neither. Running! King of all sports.