wrestling or jiu jitsu?

Ok sports fans, heres another question that has me thinking....what is more dominate, a wrestling background or a jiu jitsu background. ive seen fights like matt hughes vs royce gracie, and sean sherk vs ken flo where the wrestler dominates the ground game and then theres also been fights like paulo filio vs sonnen and frank mir vs brock lesner where the jiu jitsu guy pulls out the victory. so what style is better? is there a better style or does it just depend on the fighter? please explain. lol.

i think it depends on the fighter. usually in an MMA fight the wrestler will win unless he is fighting a very high level BJJ guy with a great guard and great hip escapes.

From sombody who is an all american wrestler, and also holds several belts from ji jitsu tournaments...let me tell you wrestling is by far much better. Basically a great wrestler can become a great jiu jitsu guy as well, but it doesn't work vice versa.

Wrestler is much better. a wrestler can learn BJJ much easier than a BJJ guy can learn wrestling. doesnt matter how good the BJJ is, if they cant get it to the ground, doesnt count for nothing, and even if they pull guard, its much easier to defend subs than to apply them. so it takes a relative small amount of time for wrestler to learn how to defend subs (first step, after that they have time to learn more about applying them etc..), while i'll take years for BJJ guys to become good wrestlers.

Wow, I expected to be the loner that got bashed but there we have it. Wrestling due to athletic/ control level and transition speed.

Mir vs Lesnar is a great indicator, not by finish, but by how the overall went down. Mir got his ass kicked and then, as I expected, as soon as ther was a restart in the action secured a limb sub.

World class pure no gi subfighter vs world class pure freestyle wrestler? I say Jiu Jitzu guy simply from the wrestlers ignorence of subs. Same matchup with both guys having minor training in eachothers styles (typical matchup) I say wrestler 80 percent or more of the time.

Wrestling is probly the biggest and most important part of the mma game. If your wrestling is better you control the fight and only fight where you wanna fight.. the opponent better hope if he dont have wrestling he has better JJ, better strking, and a better clinch then you.. Straight JJ vs Straight Wrestling.. its the wrestler.. if he dont wanna risk anyhting he will jsut stay on the feat and use his wrestling physique to throw power punches.. or if wants tog et risky, he will put you on your back, where he is still very comfortable, because a wrestlers goal is to take someone and put them on there back and make sure they can wiggle around.

Wrestling. Look at some of the guys in UFC. Some are pure wrestlers coming in (Lesnar, Kos, Maynard, Speer, Jesse Taylor) and they manage to get wins.

If you are a good wrestler, you control if the fight goes to the ground or stays up. When your a BBJ guy, you learn wrestling takedowns in hopes you'll get to use your style.

Im not saying BBJ isnt as important though, you see many occasions where a BBJ guy sets aa wrestler in line for not learning BBJ (EX. Mac vs Speer, Lesnar vs. Mir) but overall, a wrestler can go farther with his backround

More successful is wrestling, it is the best base for MMA, jiu jitsu can be learned with realitive ease, but wrestling takes some time, and not only that once you get your opponent on the ground, you have little trouble keeping them there, where as jiu jitsu, it's nt to hard to get back to your feet.

---

Posted by Taylor8766
jiu jitsu can be learned with realitive ease, but wrestling takes some time.

---

one of the most inaccurate statements to date...

i would say JJ is a better base. It teaches you basic strikes to get into a takedown position, takedowns from clinch(trip and pulling guard etc) and freestyle takedowns(single and double leg) as well as an unmatched ground offense and defense.

wrestling allows you to dictate where the fight does or doesnt go but it provides almost no offence.

so the obvious answer is JJ




not to mention the stance most of these wrestlers use makes for an awkward kickboxing that isnt quite as efficient as other strikers.

wrestling, because strength is a great counter to flexibility.

The evidence is inconclusive. Based on pure fight ending ability JJ gets the nod. Based on dictating where the fight goes, wrestling gets the nod. Based on work ethic and strength wrestling gets the nod. Based on flexibility and technique JJ gets the nod.

I believe in the future we'll see this debate being much the same as the chicken or the egg debate.

BJJ

If it is pure wrestling vs. pure BJJ in an MMA fight, I would say that BJJ will take the win most of the time.

If you take a great wrestler with limited BJJ vs. a great BJJ guy with limited wrestling, the wrestler will take it easily.

---

Posted by Rush

If it is pure wrestling vs. pure BJJ in an MMA fight, I would say that BJJ will take the win most of the time.

If you take a great wrestler with limited BJJ vs. a great BJJ guy with limited wrestling, the wrestler will take it easily.

---

Nicely put.I agree

I have always said.. for MMA if you could do two things.. it would be MT and Wrestling..

But for fun BJJ is better then wrestling..

---

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

---

Posted by Taylor8766
jiu jitsu can be learned with realitive ease, but wrestling takes some time.

---

one of the most inaccurate statements to date...

i would say JJ is a better base. It teaches you basic strikes to get into a takedown position, takedowns from clinch(trip and pulling guard etc) and freestyle takedowns(single and double leg) as well as an unmatched ground offense and defense.

wrestling allows you to dictate where the fight does or doesnt go but it provides almost no offence.

so the obvious answer is JJ




not to mention the stance most of these wrestlers use makes for an awkward kickboxing that isnt quite as efficient as other strikers.

---

Unmatched ground offense and defense? No the ground offense and defence is just as good as any style that focuses primarily on ground work.. JJ isnt any better then sambo.. heck JJ even fell short in ground work against a japanese pro wrestler.. he completely dismantled JJ.

It also depends on what wrestling your talking about.. alot of style incorporate submission.

JJ takedowns arent all that great.. they arent even comparable to Judo (tho that is the sorce for most of their takedowns, or vise versa) Let alone wrestling.. how often do you see a JJ guy take the wrestler down when he doesnt wanna go down.. hardly ever.. and if he managers too the wrestler is back up in seconds.

Every good coach will tell you the key to winning a fight, is by fighting your fight, not your opponenets.. and JJ doesnt offer that, fights start standing up. Notice how in the early UFC JJ guys dominated.. untill wrestlers entered the sport.. then wrestlers started winning the tournaments.. and a new age began

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

JJ takedowns arent all that great.. they arent even comparable to Judo (tho that is the sorce for most of their takedowns, or vise versa) Let alone wrestling.. how often do you see a JJ guy take the wrestler down when he doesnt wanna go down.. hardly ever.. and if he managers too the wrestler is back up in seconds.

---

I haven't followed this exchange, but I agree that most BJJ guys can't take people down worth a damn. Most of them only go for double leg take downs and their shot is slow and sloppy. A wrestler with a good shot will take most BJJ guys down with ease. Royce had pretty good takedowns for a BJJ guy and did a good job defending the takedown from some talented grapplers, but was at the mercy of wrestlers like Severn and Hughes.

---

Posted by Rush

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

JJ takedowns arent all that great.. they arent even comparable to Judo (tho that is the sorce for most of their takedowns, or vise versa) Let alone wrestling.. how often do you see a JJ guy take the wrestler down when he doesnt wanna go down.. hardly ever.. and if he managers too the wrestler is back up in seconds.

---

I haven't followed this exchange, but I agree that most BJJ guys can't take people down worth a damn. Most of them only go for double leg take downs and their shot is slow and sloppy. A wrestler with a good shot will take most BJJ guys down with ease. Royce had pretty good takedowns for a BJJ guy and did a good job defending the takedown from some talented grapplers, but was at the mercy of wrestlers like Severn and Hughes.

---

Yep, that's why I had said earlier that wrestlers will dictate where the fight goes. Another thing to keep in mind, though- the wrestlers in the early days of UFC going up against Royce had him outweighed by 20, 30 and sometimes more lbs.

Anyway, though.. that point aside most JJ guys have terrible takedowns (outside of Jacare, for example)

---

Posted by Jackelope

the wrestlers in the early days of UFC going up against Royce had him outweighed by 20, 30 and sometimes more lbs.

---

True, but Severn's double in that fight was going to happen regardless of his weight. It was timed really well.

You cannot say one is better than the other because that would be a false statement.

It depends on the fighter and the other tools that they have, along with who the other person they are fighting is.

---

Posted by RNC

You cannot say one is better than the other because that would be a false statement.

It depends on the fighter and the other tools that they have, along with who the other person they are fighting is.

---

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Well lets compare a machine gun to a hand gun then.

Is a machine gun better when you are a spy and need to kill the target without being heard?

Or when you need to sneak your husband a gun in jail so you shove it up your ass?

Defenitly not.

Like I said, it depends on the SITUATION.

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Is a machine gun better when you are a spy and need to kill the target without being heard?

Or when you need to sneak your husband a gun in jail so you shove it up your ass?

Defenitly not.

Like I said, it depends on the SITUATION.

---

Arg did you not get what i just said??? i said "overall".. i specifically said not specific circumstances or match ups.. and then you go and reply.. "well in this certain circumstance".. what do you not understand about me saying "overall", and "not in specific circumstances"

and i didnt say a bolt action rifle with a scope and a silencers.. i said a bolt action rifle, and a machine gun.. if you change the gun aroudn why dont u make the bolt action rifles handler have a telephone that can call in airstrikes too.. yea well what if the machine gun guy can grab a star.. start blinking random colors, do ninja flips with his racoon tail and run into enemies knocking them off the screen.??

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Is a machine gun better when you are a spy and need to kill the target without being heard?

Or when you need to sneak your husband a gun in jail so you shove it up your ass?

Defenitly not.

Like I said, it depends on the SITUATION.

---

Arg did you not get what i just said??? i said "overall".. i specifically said not specific circumstances or match ups.. and then you go and reply.. "well in this certain circumstance".. what do you not understand about me saying "overall", and "not in specific circumstances"

and i didnt say a bolt action rifle with a scope and a silencers.. i said a bolt action rifle, and a machine gun.. if you change the gun aroudn why dont u make the bolt action rifles handler have a telephone that can call in airstrikes too.. yea well what if the machine gun guy can grab a star.. start blinking random colors, do ninja flips with his racoon tail and run into enemies knocking them off the screen.??

---

Matt Hughes loses to BJ Penn by Submission
Matt Hughes beats Royce Gracie by GNP

Why was wrestling better in the one fight and BJJ better in the other? Matt Hughes is a four-time collegiate All American wrestler while BJ Penn claims to be the most decorated BJJ athlete in america and Royce Gracie is legendary. Why was wrestling the way to go in one fight and BJJ in the next? Because it matters who you are fighting.

Brock Lesnar gets submitted by Mir, but might take on Fabricio Werdum and pound him for 3 rounds.

It all matters how the fighters match up. Period.

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Is a machine gun better when you are a spy and need to kill the target without being heard?

Or when you need to sneak your husband a gun in jail so you shove it up your ass?

Defenitly not.

Like I said, it depends on the SITUATION.

---

Arg did you not get what i just said??? i said "overall".. i specifically said not specific circumstances or match ups.. and then you go and reply.. "well in this certain circumstance".. what do you not understand about me saying "overall", and "not in specific circumstances"

and i didnt say a bolt action rifle with a scope and a silencers.. i said a bolt action rifle, and a machine gun.. if you change the gun aroudn why dont u make the bolt action rifles handler have a telephone that can call in airstrikes too.. yea well what if the machine gun guy can grab a star.. start blinking random colors, do ninja flips with his racoon tail and run into enemies knocking them off the screen.??

---

Matt Hughes loses to BJ Penn by Submission
Matt Hughes beats Royce Gracie by GNP

Why was wrestling better in the one fight and BJJ better in the other? Matt Hughes is a four-time collegiate All American wrestler while BJ Penn claims to be the most decorated BJJ athlete in america and Royce Gracie is legendary. Why was wrestling the way to go in one fight and BJJ in the next? Because it matters who you are fighting.

Brock Lesnar gets submitted by Mir, but might take on Fabricio Werdum and pound him for 3 rounds.

It all matters how the fighters match up. Period.

---

Yea these are specific fights.. once again.. "OVERALL!!!" that would not be specific fights.. it would be OVERALL! Overall meaning if you took 1 million wrestlers and put them against 1 million JJ guys.. which one would win the highest average of matches. Individuals count on specific fights yes.. but overall wrestlers have done better in mma..

Also.. BJ then lost to Matt in their rematch.. and BJ is not just JJ fighters he is very well rounded.. even though BJ had great strking skills and world class JJ he still lost to a straight wrestler.

Sakuraba lost to a gracie once right? But overall he destroyed them.. overall hes a better fighter.. just because in some specific citcumstances one thing can win out.. it doesnt mean its better.. and it doesnt mean its impossible to tell wich one is better.. You take all results and average them out..

With your thinking.. there is no such thing as a good fighter.. Theres a one in a million chance i could catch mike tyson with a punch and knock him out.. so there fore we are equal fighters right.. its impossible to tell which one of us are better... yea right dude.. your being thick.

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

---

Posted by RNC

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

um yes you can say something over all is better.. yes specific match ups will vary, but overall you can say one is ahead..

Thats like saying you cant say if machine guns, or bolt action single shot rifles are better, because it depends on the handlers.. obviously an experienced marksman would kill a random dude with a machine gun, but overall machine guns own.

---

Is a machine gun better when you are a spy and need to kill the target without being heard?

Or when you need to sneak your husband a gun in jail so you shove it up your ass?

Defenitly not.

Like I said, it depends on the SITUATION.

---

Arg did you not get what i just said??? i said "overall".. i specifically said not specific circumstances or match ups.. and then you go and reply.. "well in this certain circumstance".. what do you not understand about me saying "overall", and "not in specific circumstances"

and i didnt say a bolt action rifle with a scope and a silencers.. i said a bolt action rifle, and a machine gun.. if you change the gun aroudn why dont u make the bolt action rifles handler have a telephone that can call in airstrikes too.. yea well what if the machine gun guy can grab a star.. start blinking random colors, do ninja flips with his racoon tail and run into enemies knocking them off the screen.??

---

Matt Hughes loses to BJ Penn by Submission
Matt Hughes beats Royce Gracie by GNP

Why was wrestling better in the one fight and BJJ better in the other? Matt Hughes is a four-time collegiate All American wrestler while BJ Penn claims to be the most decorated BJJ athlete in america and Royce Gracie is legendary. Why was wrestling the way to go in one fight and BJJ in the next? Because it matters who you are fighting.

Brock Lesnar gets submitted by Mir, but might take on Fabricio Werdum and pound him for 3 rounds.

It all matters how the fighters match up. Period.

---

Yea these are specific fights.. once again.. "OVERALL!!!" that would not be specific fights.. it would be OVERALL! Overall meaning if you took 1 million wrestlers and put them against 1 million JJ guys.. which one would win the highest average of matches. Individuals count on specific fights yes.. but overall wrestlers have done better in mma..

Also.. BJ then lost to Matt in their rematch.. and BJ is not just JJ fighters he is very well rounded.. even though BJ had great strking skills and world class JJ he still lost to a straight wrestler.

Sakuraba lost to a gracie once right? But overall he destroyed them.. overall hes a better fighter.. just because in some specific citcumstances one thing can win out.. it doesnt mean its better.. and it doesnt mean its impossible to tell wich one is better.. You take all results and average them out..

With your thinking.. there is no such thing as a good fighter.. Theres a one in a million chance i could catch mike tyson with a punch and knock him out.. so there fore we are equal fighters right.. its impossible to tell which one of us are better... yea right dude.. your being thick.

---

I am talking overall. What I did was called an example, you might or might not have learned it in the second grade.

And Hughes isn't a straight wrestler. In fact, no body in the UFC is a straight anything. But thats great that you brought that up because that proves my point as well. BJJ was the way to go one day while wrestling was the next. Hughes and Penn were obviously both different fighters in that match because if they were the same it would've had the same outcome. It all depends on how the two match up, more so on that given day.

I have never seen a league where wrestlers and JJ guys come from all around and they create special rules merging the two sports together so they can see who is the best. No. What does happen is this thing called MMA, where they let you use as many different styles as you want. That is why you will never get a straight wrestler to fight a straight ju-jitsu guy, and that is why you will never know what the OVERALL outcome of what 1 million fights would be.

So you find 1 million wrestlers and 1 million JJ guys and have them grapple/wrestle with specially created rules. If the wrestlers win, then fine. Wrestling is OVERALL the better of the two. But if not, then we don't know which is better OVERALL, and can only draw the conclusion that BJJ might be better on one given day and wrestling might be better on another.

Thats how I feel, OVERALL.

---

Posted by RNC


I am talking overall. What I did was called an example, you might or might not have learned it in the second grade.

And Hughes isn't a straight wrestler. In fact, no body in the UFC is a straight anything. But thats great that you brought that up because that proves my point as well. BJJ was the way to go one day while wrestling was the next. Hughes and Penn were obviously both different fighters in that match because if they were the same it would've had the same outcome. It all depends on how the two match up, more so on that given day.

I have never seen a league where wrestlers and JJ guys come from all around and they create special rules merging the two sports together so they can see who is the best. No. What does happen is this thing called MMA, where they let you use as many different styles as you want. That is why you will never get a straight wrestler to fight a straight ju-jitsu guy, and that is why you will never know what the OVERALL outcome of what 1 million fights would be.

So you find 1 million wrestlers and 1 million JJ guys and have them grapple/wrestle with specially created rules. If the wrestlers win, then fine. Wrestling is OVERALL the better of the two. But if not, then we don't know which is better OVERALL, and can only draw the conclusion that BJJ might be better on one given day and wrestling might be better on another.

Thats how I feel, OVERALL.

---

An example of the best fighting style "over all" cannot be: Manny Paqiou vs Kurt Angle.. the example could however be Wrestling vs Boxing... You still fail to understand what "overall" means.. an example of overall cannot be one specific situation.. thats the exact opposite of the word overall's definition.

"I have never seen a league where wrestlers and JJ guys come from all around and they create special rules merging the two sports together so they can see who is the best. No. What does happen is this thing called MMA, where they let you use as many different styles as you want. That is why you will never get a straight wrestler to fight a straight ju-jitsu guy, and that is why you will never know what the OVERALL outcome of what 1 million fights would be."

Fail.. enter.. the first 10 or so UFCs... Enter Mark Kerr.. Enter Mark Coleman.. Just because you can throw a punch doesnt mean your a striker of any catagory, or a mma.. my little sister is 4 years old.. she can punch.. so i guess she is a mixed martial artist right?.. When Mark Kerr entered fighting he was a straight wrestler. Everyone knows how to throw a punch that doesnt mean there not a straight wrestler. I suppose at UFC 1 .. Art Jimmerson was a proffesional MMA right? He wasnt a straight boxer??

YOu wouldnt have to creat special rules.. they could just be the same as the ufc rules.. a guy that has only trained wrestling vs a guy that has only trained JJ.. I know ... i know.. right with UFC rules a wrestler would be allowed to punch to hes not a wrestler hes a mixed martial artist.. ok im calling Dana tonight ant letting him know theres a four year old girl waiting for a contract because she knows how to waive her arms around .

Once again by your silly definitions.. insane things start happening.. apparently over 6 billion people are mixed martial artists

the rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.


"1 million wrestlers and put them against 1 million JJ guys.."

For this to be an accurate measure the practitioners would have to be of equal skill.

but how can you in reality determine this?
The time spent learning the art? ... people learn at different speeds.
How good the coach says you are?
How many victories you have?

All of the ways to determine this are either subjective(and thus innaccurate) or flawed by simple logic.


To say overall what is better is to say there are no gray areas, but the fighters skill level is a huge gray area that can never accurately be tested against each other because there is no way to do so.

So who wins between Wrestling or BJJ? Whichever fighter is better.

---

Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.

---

o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care. (this means you cant say something like: "O well that depends on inflation at the time".. Over all cost of medical care.. this means regardless of any subfactors.. overall.. nothign counts except the total average.)

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"

---

Posted by jkdskinhead

---

Posted by Pookie

The rules of the org also have alot to do with it.

SOmething like the UFC, favors wrestlers... while overseas it does not. It really depends on the judging criteria.

Overall though, it depends on the practitioner. Obvious answer, Silly arguements.

---

o·ver·all

Including everything; comprehensive: the overall costs of medical care.

covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

including everything; "the overall cost"

Synonyms: all-around, all-inclusive, all-round, broad, broad-spectrum, comprehensive, expansive, extended, extensive, far-ranging, far-reaching, global, inclusive, large, sweeping, wide-ranging, wide-reaching, widespread

I dunno maybe the definition will help you guys out or soemthing..

A practitioner is one person, in the entire group of practitioners. In order to fit the demands of the definition "overall".. you cannot have a specific practitioner vs a specific practitioner. "covering or including everything".. this means you msut have all practitioners..

Lets say you were watching a baseball game.. Sam:"what was the mets overall score Terry?" Terry:"Their score was 5 runs in the third inning" Sam:"No terry.. I want to know what their score was overall for the game"Terry: "O, im sorry Sam.. the over all score was 12 runs.. amazing!"

---

do you not realize this is all subjective?