Grapplers Striking in MMA Fights?

What reason does a grappler try and strike in MMA fights if his/her preference is grappling? shouldnt he/she just try and defend strikes and clinch his/her opponent hoping to take them to the floor for a submission attempt.





http://markschat.blogspot.com Fighting and Training Methods for Unarmed Martial Artists.

Grapplers Striking in MMA Fights?
Way more opportunity to get KTFO'd if you are just defending.





As other have said, striking opens up takedowns, keeps your opponent on guard (instead of them teeing off on you) and occassionally a grappler KTFO's a striker and wins a belt (ala Matt Serra, Dan Henderson, Randy Couture, Fedor). You have to be able to do everything well, that doesn't mean you are an expert, but you have to be competent in each phase.





The days of old where a grappler can shoot on an opponent and close the distance before they realize what is going on are over.





Now a days most shots that aren't set up are easily stuffed.





Set it up with your hands and your feet, put your opponent off balance or retreating, open him up. You can't just walk at him with your hands up and expect to get a clinch, you got to set it up, make him worry or at least respect your hands or feet, and then make your shot count when you can get solid penetration.





Just my thoughts.
Reply:because other fighters have a good take down defence.its better to be a well rounded fighter and not stick to one type of style.
Reply:They're too proud to admit that they're one dimensional.
Reply:Well, not only because others are strikers but because striking opens up possibilities from all positions for takedowns and submissions even if they aren't hard punches. its kind of hard to strike when someone has their fist in your face.
Reply:As Bryon said, striking opens up opportunities for takedowns. Similarly, striking on the ground opens up opportunities for submissions.





Another thing to take into consideration is the preferred range of BOTH fighters. Let's say that Fighter A is a BJJ god and prefers to get and keep the fight on the mat. Let's also say that his striking and wrestling is only mediocre.





Fighter A is going up against Fighter B, who is primarily a striker, but also has good takedown defense. If Fighter A were simply to overcommit to attempting a takedown over and over and over and over, he would probably get punished (as A's wrestling is only mediocre and B's takedown defense is good). Every time he shot in for the legs or tussled in the clinch, Fighter A gets a pummelling.





So, what's A's best bet/only remaining option? He has to strike. If he can survive the striking match, there's a chance that he'll be able to set up a good shot with some strikes and bring the fight to the mat. On the other hand, if he doesn't use striking to distract his opponent, Fighter A has almost no chance of winning.





In another match, we have Fighter A vs Fighter C. Fighter C is an excellent submissionist -- even better than Fighter A. However, C's jiujitsu -- while awesome in its own right -- isn't tailored toward MMA. Fighter A uses strikes on the ground to damage and threaten Fighter C, which makes it MUCH easier for A to sweep, pass, and submit C. (A perfect example of this was Alberto Crane vs Roger Huerta. Alberto would've probably smoked Huerta in a straight up BJJ match, but the opposite was true when strikes were involved. It changes the dynamic of the fight.)





And finally, we have Fighter D, who is A's equal on the ground -- with or without striking. These two have skills that negate the other's, when on the mat. The fight goes nowhere. It's similar to Royce Gracie vs Sakuraba 1; IT'LL GO ON FOREVER. Yes, one person will EVENTUALLY win, but in modern MMA there are time limits. As such, Fighter A and Fighter D slug it out, as the alternative won't really go anywhere. This is fairly common too.





To sum it up, jabs and crosses open up your opponent for hooks. Hooks open up your opponent's guard for straights. Kicks open up your opponent for punches. Punches open up your opponent for kicks. Faking a shot opens up your opponent for strikes. Striking opens up your opponent for shots.





There is, indeed, a pattern.
Reply:A fighters preference shouldn't limit their repertoire.





MMA fighters HAVE to be able to strike and able, or else they won't be succesful.
Reply:if they're not trained to throw strikes how can they defend strikes? back in the early days at ufc 1-20 everyone's style was still pure and jiu jitsu dominated all the other arts, but now that everyone knows jj, it's not as deadly because if you take a thai boxer to the ground he will pull guard and use jiu jitsu, so the same can be asked concerning strikers using jj. the main reason for grapplers using strikes can be explained using bruce lee's JKD terms: kicking range, punching range, grappling range, and trapping range. you have to kick and punch your way to grappling range, then you can clinch and do your thing. it doesnt have to be a high crescent kick and snapping backfist, take royce gracie for example he just used a soccer kick to the shin and a stiff jab.