The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Grappling martial arts are more vital towards self-defense than Striking martial arts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 52109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Grappling arts, such as wrestling, jiu-jitsu and judo, are more important to learn for self-defense than striking arts, such as boxing, muay thai and taekwondo.

3 rounds, first round is accepting the debate.


I accept your challenge. Of course, I will remain respectful, so long as you return the courtesy.
Debate Round No. 1


Striking martial arts require a vast amount of skill however, almost everyone knows how to throw a punch and will instinctively do so if a fight were to arise. Whenever punches are being thrown an experienced boxer will be able to weave through most strikes however the probability of them dodging every punch is very slim. In such case a much larger opponent, or anyone who can get good enough speed behind their hit, will be able to knock out even the most experienced fighters with a lucky punch or two.

On the ground it is a different story. Many people will know instinctively when wrestling to try to grab you and put you into a head lock or something of the sort, which an experienced wrestler will turn into a suplex and control from there, or a jiu-jitsu practitioner will be able to move it down to the ground and possibly transition to an arm bar or any other submission they see fit. Once on the ground and in a position that they opponent does not know ( which for anyone without training pretty much ends at headlocks ) they 9 times out of 10 freeze up and will not be able to do any more damage. This can be seen in just about any match for a grappling competition where a more experienced competitor goes up against an amateur competitor. The amateur will always stop moving entirely in positions that they do not know and this makes it easier for the more experienced competitor to finish their opponent without any resistance.

Another example of the dominance of grappling sports would be the Gracie family in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). The Gracie family dominated MMA back whenever it was just starting out. At the time, people would only study one martial art and use that in their matches. The Gracie family took Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to center stage in these events, usually fighting much larger opponents to show how jiu-jitsu helped smaller people defeat larger opponents. Including Helio Gracie's first fight, where he submitted national boxing champion Antonio Portugal in 30 seconds. Later Helio Gracie went on to win the 1st ever MMA single-elimination tournament facing much larger opponents than him. Nowadays everyone in MMA will study Jiu-Jitsu to make sure that they can stay safe from submission attempts so they are not as common, but still do play a major role in MMA.


First, I would like to thank Pro for remaining respectful, as well as grammatically correct in his sentences. Now, onto the issue at hand (I will be addressing each of your arguments in numerical form)
1. In your opening statement, you completely overgeneralized. You cannot categorize striking martial arts as just throwing punches any more than I can categorize grappling martial arts as rolling around with other men/women on the floor.
2. You continuously use boxing as an example of striking martial arts. Now, boxing is a very formidable combat system, there's no doubting that; but you are using one of the most up-close and personal combat styles and letting it symbolize an entire branch of martial arts. I only say this because many styles of kung fu/tae kwon do/karate are centered around keeping a moderate distance from the opponent (in order to minimize chances of being grappled) and maneuvering around them, making sure that you maintain a steady barrage of strikes until the opponent is eventually overwhelmed.
3. This one is entirely personal, but in martial arts, experienced strikers never, ever let "a lucky punch or two," hit them, especially not from a quarter-ton giant.
4. If you are a grappling practitioner, and your opponent (Let's assume them to be a striker) "freezes up and is not able to do any more damage," you are fighting an EXTREMELY inexperienced striker. Many striking martial arts such as Choy Lay Fut, a style of kung fu world-famous for its remarkable defense, now practice the art of escaping from headlocks, strangleholds, and submission grabs, as they have recognized the danger of being in a position they are unfamiliar with.
5. I won't say anything regarding the Gracie family because, as fellow martial artists, I, as well as a small group of my friends, pretty much worship them (Only inside our jiujitsu studio, though. In kung fu or muay thai, we would probably get hit in the face)

With all that said, I would like to point out that we are not debating the superiority of striking/grappling martial arts in MMA--we are debating whether or not grappling is more vital to self-defense. In a life or death situation, the risk is too high to be thinking about what hold you will be placing your assailant(s) under. Even if you are hit/kicked/slashed, a few well-timed punches and kicks can save your life.
Debate Round No. 2


JLFalcon forfeited this round.


I would like to again thank Pro for remaining respectful, and I'm sorry we couldn't have discussed the issue further.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit, arguments because CON countered all of PRO's points.