Why do people say grappling is better for street fighting than boxing?

[BlendedGrappler]

I think it's really dangerous to take someone down in a street fight, cuz you never if has any friends around who want to soccer kick you in the face. And in a real 1 on1 in a dark alley it doesn't really matter because any fighting experience is better than none.

Back when I used to be into street fighting, I took people down a lot. Falling onto concrete by itself can be a fight stopper. Especially if you fall on top of them. Especially if it's something like a standing fireman's carry or a suplex. But every time I did it I got straight back up to my feet, except once when I was fighting inside a narrow hallway and the guy still wanted to fight. So I knee rode him and finished the fight with elbows.

And actually my Jiu-Jitsu has got me out of serious s$!t twice. Both times were big brawls where I got tackled to the ground by guys that were bigger than me, but my Jiu-Jitsu helped me get back to my feet as quickly as I could (once by using a butterfly sweep, the other time by using the half-guard underhook escape).

Of course it was good that I knew some boxing moves as well, since I would probably have got KOed if I didn't know how to avoid getting punched. But in order to fight well in the street, there's more stuff that you need to know that isn't a part of boxing (at least the "clean" version).

Case in point: One of the best street fighters I ever knew trained boxing. But he always maintained that his boxing knowledge was not the major reason why he was so successful. Rather, the key was the detailed knowledge of how to fight from the clinch that he didn't learn at the boxing gym, but through experience gained through an enormous number of street fights (100+).

 

[DonS**]

I agree with you that every style had to compete in a wide range of rules, including BJJ, but something that has to be noted is the early ufc's were promoted as 'no rules - i.e. real fighting to see who's the best' -- the problem with that is that ground fighting & newaza is alot different when the floor is hard & not matted and imo it has an impact on how effective BJJ (because of the newaza focus) is because in reality the floor won't be matted & it gives strikers, wrestlers and judoka a natural edge. Probably would have been TKO's & KO's due to throws.

I responded to this before, but have another POV to add.

In early MMA, judo was doomed, because it is so similar to wrestling, except for the GI. If MAA had a rule requiring the GI, then wrestling would be rare and judo common.

BJJ would exist either way due to the focus on ground fighting. As far as mats and floors go, the real world has lots of different surfaces. Grass, concrete, wood floors, rocks, etc. As well, lots of objects that constrain movement and that can make kicking or other striking less effective.

The idea some have that a better boxer then Art would have done better in UFC 1 is nonsense to anyone who has watched the early UFC and isn't rationalizing. Art's problem wasn't lack of boxing skill, it was lack of grapling. Perhaps Tyson would have done better, but perhaps he had some grappling skill. And perhaps Tyson was strong enough to be a grappling threat even with little or no grappling experience, but even for Mike it would be real low probability to expect a knock out on a skilled grappler before a takedown.

 

[RLHLLC]

Back when I used to be into street fighting, I took people down a lot. Falling onto concrete by itself can be a fight stopper. Especially if you fall on top of them. Especially if it's something like a standing fireman's carry or a suplex. But every time I did it I got straight back up to my feet, except once when I was fighting inside a narrow hallway and the guy still wanted to fight. So I knee rode him and finished the fight with elbows.

And actually my Jiu-Jitsu has got me out of serious s$!t twice. Both times were big brawls where I got tackled to the ground by guys that were bigger than me, but my Jiu-Jitsu helped me get back to my feet as quickly as I could (once by using a butterfly sweep, the other time by using the half-guard underhook escape).

Of course it was good that I knew some boxing moves as well, since I would probably have got KOed if I didn't know how to avoid getting punched. But in order to fight well in the street, there's more stuff that you need to know that isn't a part of boxing (at least the "clean" version).

Case in point: One of the best street fighters I ever knew trained boxing. But he always maintained that his boxing knowledge was not the major reason why he was so successful. Rather, the key was the detailed knowledge of how to fight from the clinch that he didn't learn at the boxing gym, but through experience gained through an enormous number of street fights (100+).

100+ street fights? could be true but prepare for people to call shenanigans

 

[Saenchai]

See UFC 20 and under.

Now watch UFC 20 and Over.

 

[DonS**]

Now watch UFC 20 and Over.

The later UFCs incorporate the lessons learned in the earlier ones. That makes is more difficult for a viewer to learn clear lessons, since everyone is training BJJ, wrestling, boxing and MT in some combination.

 

[danielsaun]

You know what this cyber debate will never cease. Grapplers think they are shit and stand up guys say they can beat anyone's ass. Seriously we can play simulation games all day long. Now I say we divide up, I will take stand up, you take grappling let's go start some shit and report back how we did? All in say I

 

[DonS**]

You know what this cyber debate will never cease. Grapplers think they are shit and stand up guys say they can beat anyone's ass. Seriously we can play simulation games all day long. Now I say we divide up, I will take stand up, you take grappling let's go start some shit and report back how we did? All in say I

Interesting idea. But done already. Look into this thing called "ufc".

The simple fact is that you NEED grappling skills to fight. When you put grapples in against strikers, the grapplers tend to win with few exceptions, and those usually involve a 100 lb advantage for the striker.

Now, when everyone has some level of grappling skill it becomes more interesting and the better grappler doesn't always win. In fact likely the outcome hinges more on striking skills. But that's only true when both participants have some level of grappling skill.

 

[SAAMAG]

I'd say ^ is about right. The only time grappling or clinching isn't needed is when two non-grapplers are fighting. Even then it sometimes ends with a couple of dudes rolling on the ground.

In a street fight, the advantages of needing striking or grappling won't be known till the fight begins, and then it's too late to worry about it.

 

[shakedown**]

To be honest, this suggestion makes no sense to me. Anything can happen in a street fight (extra opponents, weapons etc.) I would rather be on my feet so I have mobility and observation of my surroundings rather than get caught up in a grappling match. What if you try and triangle him and he knife's your junk? I love the advantages of grappling. It would be great to know, but in a streetfight, it's starts on the feet, and that's where I'd like to keep it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLa9GfZGeU

This proves my point. And yes, Youtube clips are valid academic research to substantiate one's points. lol

 

[devante]

I'd say ^ is about right. The only time grappling or clinching isn't needed is when two non-grapplers are fighting. Even then it sometimes ends with a couple of dudes rolling on the ground.

In a street fight, the advantages of needing striking or grappling won't be known till the fight begins, and then it's too late to worry about it.

exactly a famous boxer made a similar quote; and your point stands, you don't know who/what your dealing w/UNTIL your dealing w/it and by that time you just go w/what you know.

 

[friendo]

Here's another way to look at it.

In my experience I am more likely to get into a physical altercation with someone I know, someone who knows the asshole, or someone I don't want to hurt. It should be obvious without being stated that the common dominator of almost every altercation I encounter is due to alcohol.

I much prefer being able to subdue someone without having to hurt them.

Training and being proficient at BJJ equips me with this ability.

If my girlfriends brother is blacked out drunk and threatening to beat my ass I would rather have the ability to deal with him without rocking his brain and knocking his teeth out.

With BJJ, I can (hopefully) end a confrontation without having to resort to physical violence by choking said person out or controlling him while talking him out of his drunken rage (depending on how smooth of a talker you are and how big his ego is).

I like this aspect of BJJ, although I do agree that it wouldn't be wise to use in a street fight. If you're truly concerned about self defense, you should always carry something that can act as a weapon (mini LED flashlight) and cross train in other martial arts. You can still focus on grappling or striking, but in a self defense scenario it would be best with knowing a lot of one and a little of the other.

 

[flanellograf]

Any martial art is good on the street, since the vast majority of people trying to fight you are not going to know how to fight.
Apart from that; boxing > grappling, for the first few seconds. Then the opposite.

 

[friendo]

not sure if this video has been posted in this thread, but it is a great example of how bjj CAN work on the streets and the DANGERS of it being used on the streets. Luckily for this guy, everyone was on his side.

 

[DonS**]

To be honest, this suggestion makes no sense to me. Anything can happen in a street fight (extra opponents, weapons etc.) I would rather be on my feet so I have mobility and observation of my surroundings rather than get caught up in a grappling match. What if you try and triangle him and he knife's your junk? I love the advantages of grappling. It would be great to know, but in a streetfight, it's starts on the feet, and that's where I'd like to keep it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLa9GfZGeU

This proves my point. And yes, Youtube clips are valid academic research to substantiate one's points. lol

If you want to be on your feet, then it is good to have a strong grappling base.

I've said this before in ohter threads; the only reasons I'd use BJJ in the street are:

1) I find myseldf on the ground, through no intention of my own.

2) I want to subdue someone without striking

3) I'm up against a superior striker and have no option but grappling

 

[DonS**]

Here's another way to look at it.

In my experience I am more likely to get into a physical altercation with someone I know, someone who knows the asshole, or someone I don't want to hurt. It should be obvious without being stated that the common dominator of almost every altercation I encounter is due to alcohol.

I much prefer being able to subdue someone without having to hurt them.

Training and being proficient at BJJ equips me with this ability.

If my girlfriends brother is blacked out drunk and threatening to beat my ass I would rather have the ability to deal with him without rocking his brain and knocking his teeth out.

With BJJ, I can (hopefully) end a confrontation without having to resort to physical violence by choking said person out or controlling him while talking him out of his drunken rage (depending on how smooth of a talker you are and how big his ego is).

I like this aspect of BJJ, although I do agree that it wouldn't be wise to use in a street fight. If you're truly concerned about self defense, you should always carry something that can act as a weapon (mini LED flashlight) and cross train in other martial arts. You can still focus on grappling or striking, but in a self defense scenario it would be best with knowing a lot of one and a little of the other.

I agree weith this. BJJ gives me the option of subduing someone without inflicting trauma. Most fights are not streetfights.

Now, the good old answer, eyegouges. Really? Plan A is to maim someone?

 

[BlendedGrappler]

100+ street fights? could be true but prepare for people to call shenanigans

100 would be an extremely conservative estimate. There were a lot of full-on gangster types in the area where I grew up, and this guy was as psycho as any of them. I once saw him bash his brother with a cricket bat in the street in the middle of the day over something really trivial. Apart from "recreational" street fighting, he also had to punch on a lot for work (he was a bouncer at a pretty tough club and had a sideline in drug dealing).

From age 14 when he started selling drugs to age 22 when he went to prison (for an attempted murder that was very nearly successful) is 8 years, so around 400 weeks. If he had only done 100 street fights, then that would only be one every four weeks, and I'm pretty sure he was a lot more active than that.

To be honest, this suggestion makes no sense to me. Anything can happen in a street fight (extra opponents, weapons etc.) I would rather be on my feet so I have mobility and observation of my surroundings rather than get caught up in a grappling match. What if you try and triangle him and he knife's your junk? I love the advantages of grappling. It would be great to know, but in a streetfight, it's starts on the feet, and that's where I'd like to keep it.

That is why it's useful to learn grappling if you're interested in street fighting. You need to know how to avoid getting taken to the ground as well as how to get back up if you are on the ground.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I responded to this before, but have another POV to add.

In early MMA, judo was doomed, because it is so similar to wrestling, except for the GI. If MAA had a rule requiring the GI, then wrestling would be rare and judo common.

BJJ would exist either way due to the focus on ground fighting. As far as mats and floors go, the real world has lots of different surfaces. Grass, concrete, wood floors, rocks, etc. As well, lots of objects that constrain movement and that can make kicking or other striking less effective.

The idea some have that a better boxer then Art would have done better in UFC 1 is nonsense to anyone who has watched the early UFC and isn't rationalizing. Art's problem wasn't lack of boxing skill, it was lack of grapling. Perhaps Tyson would have done better, but perhaps he had some grappling skill. And perhaps Tyson was strong enough to be a grappling threat even with little or no grappling experience, but even for Mike it would be real low probability to expect a knock out on a skilled grappler before a takedown.

Tyson would have been interesting, because he was incredibly strong, very stocky, had a low, tight boxing stance, and knockout power in both hands.

Just another what if, though...and I still don't think he could have won.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I WOULD BITE THEM AS HARD AS I COULD! lol lets see you greenbelt in bjj deal with me pulling your hair, punching, biting, and gouging your eyes!

Alright. Time to add some research to this, because I see this eye gouge claim thrown out there way too often and it annoys me.

I am not going to throw out the usual counter to this, which is that the grappler is just as likely to do it back to you, with the advantage of positional control and leverage, although this is true.

I am just going to point out that a true, jelly-on-the-fingers eye gouge will occur very rarely in streetfights, not because the option is not there, but because people have a strong psychological aversion to that level of violence.

There is a good book on the subject of deliberate violence by Lt. Col Dave Grossman, called On Killing. It is a very interesting, if slightly flawed, piece of research, and one of the things that it establishes fairly convincingly, is that there is a direct relationship between physical and emotional distance and the difficulty of a kill. A bomber pilot has a significantly killing than a man with a knife, all things being equal. His research basically shows that we have an incredibly strong psychological aversion to the kind of up close violence that a deliberate blinding represents.

Basically, one of the most difficult things for the average person to do is gouge out another persons eyes. This can be overcome through operant conditioning, as the US army discovered in their attempts to increase firing rates following WWII, but it is not easy. Some self defense schools, I kid you not, practice by placing mandarin oranges on the 'victims' eye sockets and practicing rupturing them to get used to the sensation.

Of course, the same research also shows that a small proportion of the population does a disproportionate amount of damage in any kind of conflict, due to a lack of the normal inhibition (the percentages for this lack of inhibition track pretty closely with the numbers given for sociopathy in the general population, but that is a different discussion). Suffice it to say that there are some cold, hard people out there, who will not scruple to injure you any way they can, and they are likely to be over-represented in streetfights, but they are only 2-5% of the population, depending on who you ask.

TL;DR

You may think you are a hardass and will gouge out the other guys eyes, but you probably won't.

 

[BlendedGrappler]

Tyson would have been interesting, because he was incredibly strong, very stocky, had a low, tight boxing stance, and knockout power in both hands.

Just another what if, though...and I still don't think he could have won.

I thought this was a discussion about streetfighting, not MMA.

But as to the question of whether Tyson could have been competitive in MMA, I'd say it would come down to whether or not he put some serious time into learning takedown defence.

If he'd gone in there not knowing what a sprawl was, then the most likely scenario would have been something similar to the Art Jimmerson fight.

 

[danielsaun]

I agree weith this. BJJ gives me the option of subduing someone without inflicting trauma. Most fights are not streetfights.

Now, the good old answer, eyegouges. Really? Plan A is to maim someone?

For me maim is correct. Because I never get into fights with people I know. In fact I don't ever start a fight period. So if you throw down on me then it's on dirty fighting and all. I don't go to parties or hang out at bars. Even when I did I have been in verbal altercations but never thrown the first punch. So if you swing on me and I eye gouge you are kick you in the nuts that's your problem because your threw the first punch. I was defending myself not attacking. My most likely attacker is the mentally ill homeless guy or street thug in downtown Denver, not some stupid argument at a party or bar. I look at it this way. At one point I was being accosted by so many homeless people and noticed gang member abound, I used to work with them so I am pretty good at spotting them, I was looking at CCW. Eye gouging or knife hand chop to neck is a lot better than shooting someone or stabbing them. That's my logic.