Striking vs grappling

From someone who has done both styles I can tell you that it depends on the match up. If you have someone who can strike and wants to, then do it. Grappling will always be #1 in most matches but if the guy wants to strike then strike. I enjoy both equally. As for the law side of things, well obviously the 2 of you would have to come to some form of arrangement as to severity of the match. Face / Head strikes against an non skilled guy is dangerous, infact its dangerous in the wrong hands period. There needs to be a line drawn as to the level of intensity. We are all adults and should be able to make adult decisions for ourselves anyway. Bottom Line.. It all depends on the your opponent.

Each to his own seems apt -).

Purely answering on the "fun" comment, it depends on what you're into. If you get off on wrestling then the grapple will be your thing. If you like boxing or gut punching where it's all about the impact/striking then that'll be more fun. I wonder how many guys enjoy both equally?

why do I need to prove anything, in English law it is for the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I acted unlawfully and that I used unreasonable force in law.

-Which do you think is best?
I think I'll have to go for striking, b/c less strength is needed for that, for grappling you must have some strength if you want to get hold or come out of a grapple, striking is more efficient at the beginning of a fight.

-Which one is more fun?
I don't really know, I have striking techniques I REALLY like to do but, there are also some submission and grappling moves I like to pull off, when i do a succesful grappling move it gets me more excited, but when I hit a striking move I get more.. like.. proud. hehe especially when I hit an outside cresent kick. But submission makes me feel like.. the boss. hehe, they're both fun.

-Which one is more useful in a REAL fight?
I'll have to go for striking, it's faster, easier to do, can be lethal if you know how and where to strike.

-Or do you think we need both?
Could be, you could hit your opponent till he's down and then have some fun with submission. (where ya boss at?!)

"Which do you think is best?"

That's really so dependent upon the situation that it's difficult to say; even presuming all other factors are equal or eliminated for the sake of argument (same number of opponents, no legal considerations as Sile mentioned, etc.) you're still left with the fact that both methods of attack/defense present very effective options. In truth, the "best" is whichever method in which you have more skill than your opponent.

"Which one is more fun?"

For most of the guys here (I'm presuming, so apologies if it's not true), I would think that grappling is, as you can engage in fully competitive sport, or in a less competitive "horseplay" style of grappling, either or both of which one might find not only platonically fun but possibly erotic, without as much risk of visible minor damage.

Personally, I like 'em both, but the only one I find fun on its own is grappling... not as much a fan of pure stand-up.

"Which one is more useful in a REAL fight?"

Again, this is so dynamic it's difficult to say... skills in both are necessary to optimize survival (when we talk about a "real fight," we don't know the limit of aggression of the opponent going in, so we must presume that life is at stake). If you HAD to choose one, I'd pick striking, as it allows you to move and attempt escape more readily than ground skills.

"Or do you think we need both?"

Absolutely. If you're really examining the art of fighting from a self-defense standpoint, both skills are necessary to optimize survival. From a sport or recreation aspect, of course you don't need both, just do whatever is fun. I like MMA, so I pursue both.

Sile: I think you are better off if you can win with grappling alone. The reason is that most legal systems have rather harsh provisions for winning a fight with striking.

Indeed, and this is why I gave so much time to aikido as it is perfect for this. In my work it is very useful to be able to be able to restrain someone with minimal harm.

Allanmac: If that is not possible and you need to stand and fight - stay upright as long as you can.

I think this is also true, which is why it is useful to have both striking and grappling skills. Stay on your feet if you can, but know what to do if you go to the ground.

Running away is the best advice in a real fight. If that is not possible and you need to stand and fight - stay upright as long as you can. Going to ground, unless you are expert on how you intend quickly to immobilise your assailant just gives him - still more worryingly his buddies - the chance to kick your head. If you have to mix up it, make sure and make clear you are NOT looking to fight - shout it out if necessary. Say you actually are winning and fend him off, what if a witness comes along and just sees you laying the guy out? You end up viewed as the assailant. Now , in friendly, competitive...striking and grappling is the best combo, in my humble opinion -). EACH to his own!

I think grappling is more "fun", but fun is such a subjective term.

As for usefulness in a "real fight": I think you are better off if you can win with grappling alone. The reason is that most legal systems have rather harsh provisions for winning a fight with striking.

Assuming you are acting on self defense (a fact that you have to prove in court), you can still be sentenced or put on probation if you cause severe trauma by striking.

Grappling is more "elegant" in the sense that it is possible to defeat someone without causing serious trauma. You can apply a hold or pin, you "win" and nobody gets hurt.

Granted, if you face multiple opponents this is probably not an option, and in fact, it should be easier to prove self defense in this case.

Which do you think is best?

Which one is more fun?

Which one is more useful in a REAL fight?

Or do you think we need both?