Is Grappling Easier to Teach Than Striking?
Updated: Oct 15
I've spent a lot of time teaching both grappling and striking, and there is something I've come to appreciate more as a coach:
Grappling is easier to teach.
That doesn't mean grappling is easier to learn. It certainly doesn't mean grappling is easier to become good at. It means that the nature of grappling gives a coach more control over the learning environment. Striking doesn't give you that luxury. And I think that difference explains a lot about why striking can be so difficult to teach well.
Grappling Is a Little Like Chess
When you're teaching grappling, the position itself gives you a tremendous amount of information. If I have you mounted, we know where we are. We know what grips you have. We know what you're trying to do. We know what I'm trying to do. There are a relatively limited number of meaningful problems that need to be solved from that position.
If you're trying to escape mount, I have a pretty good idea of the problems you need to solve. If I'm trying to maintain mount, I know what you're going to try to do. If you get to half guard, we've entered a different set of problems. If you get to the back, we've entered another.
This is one of the things that makes grappling feel a little like chess. The position constrains the game. That makes it possible to teach a tremendous amount of detail. I can show you a sequence from mount escape. You can drill it. Your partner can give you a specific reaction. You can learn the next step. Then we can change their reaction and work on another solution. The position gives us a starting point. That makes the coach's job easier.
Striking Is More Like Poker
Striking is different. I sometimes describe striking as being more like poker. You're constantly trying to figure out what the other person is showing you. You're looking for tells. You're trying to create reactions. Sometimes you play it safe. Sometimes you bluff. Sometimes you call their bluff. And sometimes you just go all in.
The biggest difference is that you have relatively little control over what the other person can do. I can decide to throw a jab, but I can't decide what happens next.
Maybe they parry it.
Maybe they slip it.
Maybe they pull back.
Maybe they step in.
Maybe they counter with an overhand.
Maybe they kick me.
Maybe they do absolutely nothing because they saw something I didn't.
That makes it very difficult to build long, predetermined plans. You might think you're going to throw a three-punch combination and finish with a kick. Then you throw the jab and your opponent slips outside. Suddenly that second and third punch and the kick you planned three seconds ago don't mean much. You may have just created an opportunity for your opponent to hit you in the face. That's striking.
The Technique List Isn't the Hard Part
This is one of the strange things about striking. The actual list of techniques isn't particularly large. There are only so many punches. Only so many kicks. Only so many basic defensive movements. Compared to grappling, the technical catalog can look remarkably small. But that doesn't make striking simple.
The difficult part is everything surrounding those techniques.
Range
Distance management
Footwork
Timing
Head movement
Angles
Feints
Creating reactions
Recognizing reactions
Setting traps
Reading your opponent
Understanding when an attack is available and when it isn't
Knowing when to stay in the pocket and when to leave
Knowing what your opponent is trying to make you do
A technically limited skill set can produce an almost unlimited number of problems.
That's what makes striking the sweet science. The difficulty isn't necessarily what can I do?
It's when should I do it, and what happens if they don't cooperate?
This Is Where I Think Striking Instruction Often Goes Wrong
One of the mistakes I see in combat sports coaching is introducing a new technique and then making the enormous leap from learning it directly into full-speed, open sparring.
We teach the technique. Everyone practices it a few rounds. Then the coach says, "Okay, let's spar." That's a pretty big jump.
Imagine teaching someone a new takedown and then immediately asking them to hit it against someone who can use every takedown defense they know. Or teaching someone a new submission and immediately putting them into a completely open roll where their partner is trying to escape, pass and submit them.
We don't generally expect someone to go from knowing the technique to being able to reliably apply the technique against an unrestricted opponent in one step.
Striking shouldn't be treated that way either. Learning the punch is the beginning. It isn't the skill.
There Has to Be a Bridge
If I teach a fighter a new counter to the jab, I don't necessarily want their next experience with that technique to be a five-minute round where their partner can do anything they want.
There are a lot of steps between those two things.
First, they need to understand the movement.
Then they need repetitions.
Then they need to experience the movement against some resistance.
Then they need to recognize the situation that makes the technique appropriate.
Then they need to experience variations of that situation.
Then they need to make a decision about whether to use it.
Then we can start removing some of the restrictions.
That's where situational or scenario-based sparring becomes so valuable.
Instead of saying, "Go spar and try to remember that new counter," we can create a problem where that counter actually has a chance to emerge.
Maybe one partner is allowed to jab and the other is working specifically on recognizing and countering it.
Then the partner can add the cross.
Then the jab can be feinted.
Then the partner can attack after the counter.
Then we can add movement.
Then we can allow other attacks.
Eventually, the situation becomes less constrained.
We're gradually moving from knowing the technique to recognizing the opportunity to making the decision to using the skill in a chaotic environment.
That's a much more realistic pathway.
Grappling Has Situational Training Too
This isn't to say grappling coaches have everything figured out. Good grappling coaches do exactly the same thing. If I want you to get better at escaping mount, I don't just demonstrate an escape and then say, "Okay, go roll."
We can start in mount.
We can give the top player a specific goal.
We can give the bottom player a specific goal.
We can limit the available attacks.
We can increase the resistance.
We can change the starting position.
We can introduce different reactions.
Eventually, we remove the constraints and see whether the skill survives.
Grappling simply makes this process easier to organize because the position gives us a natural starting point.
The Goal Isn't to Make Striking Look Like Grappling
I think this is where we can get ourselves into trouble. Because grappling is easier to break down into positions and sequences, there is a temptation to try to do the same thing with striking.
We start building longer and longer combinations.
We teach increasingly elaborate sequences.
We create combinations for every possible reaction.
We try to predict what the opponent will do next.
But that's not really how striking works. The longer the predetermined sequence becomes, the more opportunities there are for reality to interrupt it. A fighter doesn't need to memorize a twelve-step response to every possible combination. They need to understand enough of the game that they can recognize what is happening and make a good decision.
That doesn't mean combinations are useless. Combinations are incredibly useful for developing mechanics, rhythm, coordination and offensive habits. But eventually the fighter has to stop asking, "What comes next in the combination?"
They need to start asking, "What did they just do?"
That's a different skill.
The Coach's Job Changes
Maybe that's the biggest lesson I've taken from coaching both sides of combat sports.
The coach isn't simply responsible for giving the athlete more techniques. The coach is responsible for creating the path that allows those techniques to become usable skills.
In grappling, that path can often be very detailed because the position gives us something stable to work from. In striking, the path has to account for uncertainty much earlier.
The opponent moves.
They change distance.
They lie to you.
They make mistakes.
They capitalize on your mistakes.
They do something you didn't expect.
That's why striking requires so much more than technical knowledge. You can know every punch in the book and still have no idea how to fight someone who doesn't cooperate with your plan. And that's ultimately what we're trying to teach. Not the ability to perform a technique when the world behaves exactly as expected. We're trying to develop the ability to recognize what is happening when it doesn't.
Maybe the Difference Is Control
Grappling gives you a degree of control over the problem. Striking gives you much less. Neither is better. They're just different problems. And I think good coaching starts by recognizing that difference. We shouldn't expect striking to be taught exactly like grappling simply because both are combat sports.
The techniques may be easier to identify in striking. The actual skill may be much harder to develop. Because eventually the fighter has to stop following the plan. They have to read the opponent, recognize the opportunity and make the decision. And when that happens, you're no longer teaching them what to do.
You're teaching them how to fight.
Comments