Grapplers are only effective at grappling range and maybe trapping range (due to joint locks, standing grappling, etc).
I said grapplers weren’t experts at controlling space because they’re only effective at one out of 4 ranges, and their objective with takedowns, entrances, clinches, etc. is to get into that range. You have to be in grappling range to go for a sub, the grappler’s main weapon, that’s how it is.
Smart strikers know this, and can keep enough distance when they’re not attacking to the point where they have enough reaction time to evade or throw a strike in response (not to say responding strikes are all-effective, but it’s an option). Conversely, they can also strike well enough to put their opponents on the defensive, partially jamming them and taking away takedown options, until it gets too hot and they can pull back.
You’re right that overextending swings, holding poor positions, and other such follies by strikers leave them wide open to takedowns. The reason so many striking specialists kept doing things like that, especially in the early UFCs is, they tend to practice all-striking and spar in a striking ruleset.
Little shit mistakes in a striking match that could only cost you a point turn into deep shit mistakes against a grappler who can turn them into subs in the blink of an eye.
This is why I’m with people who say sparring and fighting need to have less rules; when you spar and fight with only Kyokushin rules or only K-1 rules, you’re going to learn to exploit them and let slip mistakes that don’t mean anything, but when you go NHB, the same rules aren’t there anymore and the same mistakes will cost you against opponents who spar with less restrictions.
Even if you say you have to study grappling to be effective against it, that still doesn’t mean that you have to work at your next belt in BJJ 4 hours a day or learn a whole shitload of subs, sweeps, and whatnot that you’re never going to use since you’re a striker anyway.
You’re going to want to learn to defend against subs and how to escape disadvantaged positions, and that’s not going to require or be served well by a 50:50 attack/defense ratio, maybe a 20:80 ratio would be better.
Again, it boils down to semantics: At the grappling range, all techniques are “grappling”, but a fighter doing “grappling” to escape/be able to strike is “anti-grappling”, the same fighter also doign “grappling” in order to go for a sub is doing “grappling” proper.
Can’t say I see much neutral ground in this, looks like an “agree to disagree” situation.
Also, Peedee: I’d be able to answer better if you clarified what exactly you meant by “what you’re talking about”, but 125-pound women in self-defense situations can apply the space control aspect of anti-grappling, and many do with natural aplomb (which refers back to what I said about the basic defenses in the four ranges being ‘natural’).
First in self-defense is awareness, so if they’re aware of a suspicious person, then comes space control-- escape if they’re approached, keep a distance if that’s what would be appropriate.
I’m not implying a woman should wait for an attacker to shoot so she can sprawl, that would be asinine, since with a sprawl you’re trying to maintain contact with your opponent and defend successfully without backing up, where a woman’s objective in SD would be to escape, which is contrary to all that.
“God is dead.” -Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.” -God