Striking arts or grappling arts.?

which one of these arts are more violent in your perspective,


when used in a sport situation like the UFC; in the streets (used by one person vs another in an agreed street fight everything goes and both parties know the intentions; when confronted by an assailant and you use one of these arts on them?

Striking arts or grappling arts.?
Striking SEEMS more violent.





In a streetfight (with people with some training), you will hardly see any grappling.





An experienced grappler can brake a bone, and that is pretty violent IMO.





A knockout will always seem more violent though.





just my two cents
Reply:You will have to learn some of both to be able to survive, lets say in the streets of London, Amsterdam, Paris.


In a street or bar fight they will try to out-box you. Then they will grab you round the waist like a rugby player and take you down. (especially in the UK). So you will need both.


I haven't learned much grappling yet....
Reply:Strking arts are more violent in almost all situations because every impact causes damage. The striker has no control over the amont of damage he does other than to pick a target that may be less harmful. He strikes fast and hard. There is blood, tissue injury, unconsciousness, etc.





The grappler smothers the strikers attacking weapons, can immobilize without injury to attacker, and can force him to submit through pain compliance. Yes, he can break bones, dislocate, and choke attacker to death if necessary. But he always has control.
Reply:I don't think you can compare the violence levels. Each fight is unique.


Even when people grapple they still strike in techniques like ground and pound.


So, both fighting styles are violent. Grappling may seem less violent on a first look but when you think about the potentially joint damage and bone breaks that illusion goes away.
Reply:I don't think you're trying to discover comparitive levels of violence, I'm sure you mean the amount of damage caused, right?





90% of fights in MMA competitions (such as the UFC) are won either by knock-out (strike to the head) or by referee decision (by which time both fighters are pretty cut up). I would say striking causes the most damage. Even when the fight is taken to the ground, the "ground and pound" techniques cut the opponent's face to shreds. Especially if it's someone like Matt Hughes or Tito Ortiz. Or David Loaseau from Canada, who has elbows like razor blades... ouch.





Even when you get taken down in a street fight, trying to place an arm or leg lock ain't gonna work. You need to learn "ground striking" (i.e. striking while on your back and learning to stand back up while getting booted in the teeth) rather than grappling. I doubt any BJJ practitioner can apply an arm bar when they're getting a thumb jammed in their eye.





Striking will always prevail over grappling. Always. Sure, Royce Gracie might be one of the greatest grapplers in history, but I doubt he would be so keen to try and tie you up with a peculiar-sounding joint lock when his hair has been grabbed and his head is being slammed repeatedly into a concrete pavement. Or his opponent is biting his fingers off. "Ground striking" not grappling boys and girls.
Reply:Both are as violent as the other, in my perspective.





A striker can drive a persons nose into their skull or break ribs and lodge them into someone lung an or heart if they know what they are doing. Or they could just give them a touch-up letting the other guy know he is out classed.





The grappler can toss a person onto their head and kill them instantly or onto a pole and cause permanent paralysis . Or he can toss them on their back and wind them letting their opponent know this is not the right person to pick ( with the option of catching their head so the are not knocked out)








There is no real "more violent style" every style is violent. It is the intent when you use that skill that makes it "violent" or not.
Reply:Striking. Vi0lence usually refers to the manner in which an attack is made, not in a particular technique itself and is usually fueled by the attacker's emotion(i.e. anger, fear or hatred). And striking lends itself to these emotions much more easily than grappling. Which is why more people find satisfaction smashing something til it breaks over merely choking or twisting it.
Reply:In the UFC, obviously striking is more "violent", if we're assuming "violent" correlates to "damaging". Most fighters submit long before actual damage is done to their joints when grappling, but few will throw in the towel until they've been cut up so badly it'll take a plastic surgeon years to repair their face.





In the street or when confronted by an assailant, both are fairly equal. A true self-defense situation forces your brain, the most important muscle used in self-defense, to utilize techniques at killing speed, power, and on targets that you'd not normall attack in sparring, ie. groin, eyes, spine, back of head, knee cap, elbow, etc. This happens in both striking and grappling, though, as a striker will defend himself by kicking hard and fast to a kneecap, shattering it, but a grappler would throw a kimura lock (from standing, no doubt) on an attacker and wrench it well past the normal "submission" point in the same situation. This would tear the attacker's rotator cuff completely apart in less than a second.





Also, grappler might neutralize an attacker who is striking by shooting and taking them down to the ground, sending their head through concrete, tabletops, chairs, whatever. This doesn't happen in a ring because there are no furniture or concrete pads in the cage/ring. So, obviously, even something as simple as a takedown (which can also happen in a split second) can be deadly. Seriously, anyone who thinks a grappler is not prepared to utterly destroy an attacker in a self defense situation is delusional. Just because grapplers don't break their sparring partners or opponents arms, legs, and neck everyday doesn't mean they don't realize how to do it.





So, basically, anything can be "violent" in the street or when attacked by an assailant. But I would have to say that the poor guy who attacks most MMA fighters is going to be a sight to see in the hospital: rotator cuff torn and his arm dangling limply, face shattered from knees, kneecap ripped apart from roundhouse kicks, or ligature marks from the rear naked choke that put him to sleep, almost permanently.
Reply:i do kenpo and jujitsu so i have a view on both...they both can be very violent do not underestimate either one
Reply:They can be equally violent depending on how they are used.
Reply:In any self-defense situation you must have striking. The ring-style of fighting arts will get you killed in a street fight.





But even Morehei Ueyshiba, the founder of Aikido, stated that all fighting is 90% atemi (striking).

www.boots.com