Interesting Article About Grappling Attack vs Grappling Defence

[MrAndrewV]

Link

The article basically suggests that it's much harder to use grappling to attack than it is to use grappling to defend.

Since it's always easier to hit someone from a dominant ground position than to try and submit them it makes more sense for pro MMA fighters to concentrate on defensive grappling, and offensive striking.

I found it pretty persuasive. What do you guys think?

[Kintanon]

That article made me hate you personally for bringing it to my attention.

[Zapruder]

That was about 76%idiot and 32.796% retard...

[DKJr]

Strike more, grapple less. Got it!

[WhiteShark]

Did you just post a link to your own pathetic blog and call it an "article" ?

[money]

tl;dr

Shut up and train.

[CoffeeFan]

That was a terrible article written by someone who spends more time watching UFC rather then training. Please note the following:

Firstly, let’s talk about the double leg take down. It is a staple of MMA and BJJ but that doesn’t mean it’s actually any good.

The guy does a terrible job trying to convey his argument, offers no proof, and can't seem to make up his mind on what he wants to convey. I'm curious what his actual experience is....

[helmutlvx]

I don't even grapple and this stank of bullshit.

And for the love of god, doesn't anyone do revisions anymore? That **** was rough first draft at best.

[Uncle Skippy]

I think the article overgeneralized and focused on established positions instead of the beauty of transitions which is where submissions eventually come from and where my ass gets handed to me on a regular basis by those better than me.

[PointyShinyBurn]

Since it's always easier to hit someone from a dominant ground position than to try and submit them it makes more sense for pro MMA fighters to concentrate on defensive grappling, and offensive striking.

And how, without offensive grappling, are we to obtain these dominant positions?