Are grappling martial arts more efficient than striking ones – quora electricity notes

#####

• Around here, for street survival, you need a striking-based method with good mobility, plus the grappling ability that all fighters need, for when they pile in on you. Most street incidents here are multi-opponent and half of them carry pocket knives – so a grappling-based method will get you killed. Here, it’s stick & move, work the environment, defend the takedown, bang them out and keep moving, use throws when the pressure gets high enough, but keep moving.

So like any fighting method you fit it to what you’re likely to face. Some places I’ve been the only thing worth knowing apart from practical pistol is multi-opponent knife fighting. Anything else is a waste of time. The backstreets in the day or any street at night time, in Durban, South Africa, for example. Neither grappling nor striking would be much use there, you just need to kill as many of them as you can as fast as you can until you get a draw. A draw in streetfights is where you make it easier for the ones left standing to walk away, then it’s over. You leave fast, before they get reinforcements. In somewhere like Durban, in the wrong place at the wrong time, you’d need a gun to survive and even then it would be close.

People need to be more realistic about these things. For nice duels in civilised places – one-on-one fights without bystanders joining in – then whatever you are best at is best for you. In contest fights then whatever wins under those rules as long as it fits you OK. In many street fights, things can be much harder and you have to start with the assumption there are several opponents and some may have knives. It doesn’t make much sense to me to train for unarmed duels when the reality could be very different – but it’s up to you.

If you mean to ask if grappling is less energy-intensive at controlling or subduing an opponent than striking… then sorta? Wrestling is pretty energy intensive- wrestlers are trained to pin or score as many points as possible within three 2 minute rounds. I get exhausted just thinking about it.

Judo is similarly explosive, but rounds are reset to a neutral position after a takedown is scored but a pin or submission is not immediately attained, or if neither judoka scored a takedown after they go to the mat. I think. Judo is as confusing as cricket to me. Anyway, the action is explosive, but there’s a lot of downtime.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a bit less energy-intensive, because the training involves live newaza grappling in 5 minute intervals or so, with brief rests of about a minute in between, and this can go on for 1–2 hours in a typical class. As a result, BJJ people use position, leverage, and balance to maintain a dominant position, letting their opponent has themselves out trying to escape or reverse the position and get into one where they can apply a submission. It’s a bit more methodical. Rather than attack head on, typically you wait for an opponent to make a critical mistake that allows you to end the match with a submission. This is why some people call it ‘body chess’, although I prefer the term ‘cuddle fighting’.

Contrast this with striking arts, where the goal is either to do as much physical damage to the opponent as possible and end the fight, or in sport, to either do that, or gradually chip away at your opponent until you can decisively end the fight with a KO or TKO, all while attempting to avoid similar punishment, and you end up with a very energy-intensive activity that requires A LOT of conditioning.

In a sporting or combat sense, it could be said that immediately submitting or KOing your opponent with a ten-finger guillotine from standing in 10 seconds is very efficient, and KOing your opponent with a single jab-cross combo in 10 seconds is also very efficient.