Traditionally, culturally (especially in the usa) it is taught that only striking is exciting and that striking is closer to "fighting" than grappling. We know logically that this is incorrect.
We know that the vast majority of fights go to the ground.
Thus, clearly grappling is closer to fighting than striking.
The difference is the perceived danger. You can control what happens to your opponents while grappling. You can't so much striking (though I used to love to punish people to the body and legs).
Nevertheless, the danger of knocking people out plus our culture of learned acceptance that striking is more exciting gives rise to this idea.
Culturally we are taught that takedowns are superior to pulling guard. Watching the bj penn ronda rousey match brought a few thoughts to mind.
Let's discuss only one on one hand to hand (no weapons) fights to keep self defense nuts from chiming in and derailing this discussion. (Obviously things change with different elements involved)
If 95% of fights go to the ground then the individual who trains grappling will generally win. It matters very little what striking is brought to bear. The grappler can use whatever the hell he wants and have as close to a certain victory as is possible. Berimbolo, 50/50, worm guard, whatever.
They probably won't ever get close to those positions though. Generally those positions arise from facing another grappler. No need when you are against your average untrained person.
In addition the grappler will be better able to USE striking, eye gouges, biting, nut grabs and similarly to prevent them through controlling their opponent.
by now you are wondering what this has to do with takedowns. I don't blame you. I am trying to paint a picture of how ideas and beliefs we have are shaped by the culture in which we live.
Takedowns are great. I love them. I love judo. But really, we are back to the concept of striking being closer to legitimate fighting than grappling. Simply substitute takedowns for striking and you have a very common belief. While I agree that one on one it would be better to be on top right away via a good takedown, the reality is it probably would make very little difference in a fight grappler vs. Untrained. Again. In a fight I could pull guard if I wanted and be assured I would come out fairly unscathed. It could be argued that it might be safer depending on the surface of the ground and what edges might be around you when you do the takedown.
Let's now discuss grappler vs. Grappler matches. If you have amazing takedowns and bring me to the mat you have dictated the fight/match/bout/whatever.
If I have amazing ground skills, and I sit down or pull guard, I have dictated the fight/match/bout/whatever.
Given this context, takedowns only become more important given awarded points and rules.
Takedowns also would be important in a one on one street fight no weapons between two grapplers.
Everything else is so much dross and semantics and opinion. One skill set in grappling is no more or less important than any other. The issue is we have an enormous culturally imprinted idea that takedowns are the most important part of grappling. This comes from our strong history of wrestling where the takedown is by far the most important part. Judo has a similar history. The olympic committee made the people who brought Judo change the emphasis on the throwing despite the many other important aspects of grappling. They did not do this because of the relative importance or lack thereof. They did it because that was the part the average person who was untrained could get excited about.
As grapplers we all know how excited we get over a grappling match most others would fall asleep watching. We understand the importance of each grip and movement of the hips. We understand that the more dynamic moves are not the most important.
The masses don't.
Takedowns are just one part of a complete grappling game, neither more or less important than any other part.
I personally would rather see two guys "pajama hugging" than two guys circling each other with failed takedown attempts for an entire match. Just my opinion. Both are fighting for dominant position. But people feel and are taught that the one is better merely because it is more exciting.
The rousey bj Penn match and some of the comments were interesting. She appeared to clearly have better takedowns but as soon as she felt in danger on the ground she stood up. She dictated the fight in that case. He began to dictate it on the ground. Both skill sets were important. It was a fun and instructive dynamic.
Let us discuss! 
I agree that all aspects of grappling are important and to dismiss one part is to do so at your own detriment.
This is a big assumption but If we assume all fights end on the ground then your right, the take down is not as important as the ground aspects of grappling. The problem with this assumption , however, is evident in the BJ -rousey sparring session.
Again, making assumptions, but let's assume that was a real roll and BJ didn't just let her throw him. When rousey wanted it on the ground, she got it there. When she wanted to disengage, she was able to because of being in the top position. To me, that's the beauty of being good at take downs, you dictate where the action happens.
You have to know what to do once there but it's nice to have confidence in ones take down ability.
Now, for a grappling match under most sub grappling rules,I agree that one can do well without take down but you said a fight and in a fight I think the take down is very important 
Guard pulling doesn't bother me at all if that's someone's game. What I dislike is people pulling guard not because that's where they're dangerous and they'd rather be on top but they have no takedowns and they're afraid to stand. I would hazard a guess that most of the world-class competitors that are known for guard pulling actually have excellent takedowns or at least a fundamental understanding. To put it simply I think guard pulling is fine if it's strategic and not rooted in fear.
I agree with ChipW. My thoughts have always been that striking happens on the feet, grappling happens on the ground and takedowns are the interface between these two states.
Admittedly I'm no good at takedowns, and in grappler vs grappler matches I almost always pull guard, but I don't want to always be like this. Most of my attacks are from the bottom, but I'm developing a top game to so that the follow up from takedowns is made easier.
Controlling the positions were the fight takes place is the most important part of grappling. If you mount or take the back you can inflict a lot of damage or submit with little chance of being hit back. Takedowns are part of this control, if you can take the opponent down clean, you end on top, often times with the guard passed or in half guard, thus in a superior position.
If the opponent tries to take you down and you have good takedown defense you control were you do not want to go, which is very important in multiple attacker situation. Also good slam can inflict damage and knock the wind out somebody, if not knock unconsciously by improper break fall.
You can pull guard against an inferior grappler, but if the opponent have some idea of what to do, he can defend, stall and stand up back to were he wants the fight to take place. (e.g. Overem vs Werdum)
Most of the time the main reason two guys are able to circle each other for an entire match with failed takedowns is because of judges, rules, and boundaries such as the end of the mat fighting area. It is very hard to fully commit to a takedown and recover back standing up several times in a row if the opponent is also contering. Who fails at a takedown often continues scrambling on the ground, and sometimes is able to go back up to the top if he wants to wrestle standing up.
I feel I'm a pretty good grappler from my back. Been doing jiu Jitsu for over ten years. That said I would never be comfortable, so to say, being on my back in a street fight. WOuld I be able to defend strikes effectively? Probably so, but i would be doing everything in my power to get on top as quickly as possible.
I do understand what op is saying as far as rather having the fight on the ground then standing but if your saying you can win the fight easily enough on the ground then you should be able to get the takedown easily enough also. I think you'd be settling with taking a risk that with minimal training you can easily avoid against an untrained opponent. So much safer fighting from the top.
" This comes from our strong history of wrestling where the takedown is by far the most important part."
I always thought so as well but someone did a compilation of scoring in the last several years of the NCAA d1 tournament.
The most common scoring move is actually the simple stand up and cut away from the bottom. I thought that was pretty wild, I never would have thought it.
We have seen from MMA how important being able to take someone down is. How many blackbelts have we seen get beaten up on the feet and not be able to do a thing about it because they can't take the guy down? BJ Penn is a great blackbelt, but he was held down and beaten up by GSP. If he was on top, that might have been an entirely different fight.
Why would you ever want to be on the bottom in a street fight? Guy on top spazzes and throws 20 wild punches -- one gets through and the fight has changed. Against an untrained person, a good grappler should still be able to defend himself from the bottom. But what if the person on top has a judo or wrestling background? What kind of martial art bases their techniques on the opponent sucking?
ChipW - " This comes from our strong history of wrestling where the takedown is by far the most important part."
I always thought so as well but someone did a compilation of scoring in the last several years of the NCAA d1 tournament.
The most common scoring move is actually the simple stand up and cut away from the bottom. I thought that was pretty wild, I never would have thought it.
Doesn't surprise me -- as the skill level gets higher and higher, it becomes harder to take someone down. Lots of stalemates on the feet.
OP I like your post and understand what you're saying. The thing that came to mind for me as I was reading it was the basic idea of mitigating risk, something I've always tried to apply to my training. The big thing for me with my grappling (when I'm thinking in terms of being competitive rather than learning) is to always maintain top position because in a real fight if I'm on top I am less likely to take damage then if I'm on the bottom. If I pull guard or invert I am making myself more vulnerable. Yes I acknowledge someone skilled at these things will 9 times out of 10 be ok against an untrained opponent, but I still think the risk of getting stomped or nailed with a hammer fist goes way up if I'm there. For these reasons I think having a solid take down game is important because you have more chance to control who gets top position.
misterw - We have seen from MMA how important being able to take someone down is. How many blackbelts have we seen get beaten up on the feet and not be able to do a thing about it because they can't take the guy down? BJ Penn is a great blackbelt, but he was held down and beaten up by GSP. If he was on top, that might have been an entirely different fight.Awesome. Basically what I was trying to say (you must have posted while I was typing).
Why would you ever want to be on the bottom in a street fight? Guy on top spazzes and throws 20 wild punches -- one gets through and the fight has changed. Against an untrained person, a good grappler should still be able to defend himself from the bottom. But what if the person on top has a judo or wrestling background? What kind of martial art bases their techniques on the opponent sucking?
"The issue is we have an enormous culturally imprinted idea that takedowns are the most important part of grappling."
It is a culturally imprinted idea because it is obviously better to be on top and taking someone down is the most direct route to being on top of them. Why pull someone on top of you, giving them the advantage, then hope to sweep them when you could just take them down and be on top the whole time?
Takedowns and Clinching skills are important for Jiu-Jiteiros
Pulling guard is as unrealistic as it gets. That is not where you want to be if in a fight or self defense situation. If you happpen to get there that is when you use your jiu jitsu. But that should be worst case. In MMA the guy on top these days wins virtually every time.
If you don't want to see 2 guys jockeying for failed takedowns the whole match they should probabaly implement standing up stalling penalties like they do in judo. Anyone can run away and stiff arm. If you penalized defensive players on the feet you would force the action.
Takedowns are everything, fighting with your back on road or in a bar with broken glass on floor. Fuk hip escaping or wriggling around or anything.
You've also neglected size.
In a street fight, a 150lb black belt wouldn't want to be under a 200lb blue belt with wrestling experience who could continuously lift and slam the black belts head on the street/curb/bench.
"We know that the vast majority of fights go to the ground. "
I don't think this can be taken as an absolute truth. A LOT of fights never go to the ground (having bounced for many years, I've seen this myself), and of the ones that do, it's often because someone gets knocked down, unless maybe they slip/trip. They do tend to involve the clinch, however.
Either way, to assume that you will end up underneath your attacker as a trained martial artist in control of the fight, is just a defeatist attitude. Yes, knowing how to fight off your back is important, and there may be instances where pulling guard has utility (I would probably do it if I had to fight someone on ice during winter, as it offers more control), but for the most part, you should be looking to either finish on the feet or get the TD.
misterw -ChipW - " This comes from our strong history of wrestling where the takedown is by far the most important part."
I always thought so as well but someone did a compilation of scoring in the last several years of the NCAA d1 tournament.
The most common scoring move is actually the simple stand up and cut away from the bottom. I thought that was pretty wild, I never would have thought it.
Doesn't surprise me -- as the skill level gets higher and higher, it becomes harder to take someone down. Lots of stalemates on the feet.
Not really surprising to me either. Once past the first period, stalemated or not, periods two and three are often started in referee's position. Giving the guy on the bottom a chance to score via escape (stand up or whatever).
For me basically there are two forms of fighting:
- Imposing your will to your opponent
- Going with the flow and not give your opponent any feedback of resistance
For me the second form is my choice and so I favor Kicking and striking over takedowns in addition to my Jiu Jitsu. I don´t want to force the fight to the ground I just use space as the most important weapon and use timing to make it work.
So for me stand up kicking and striking is used to set up takedowns or beat my opponent standing but I wouldn´t force the fight to the ground.
Whatever happens is o.k. I just try to never give my opponent any feedback and try to never offer resistance....
Off topic but related to the op, you can't take too much from the penn rousey session. It was just training.
"If 95% of fights go to the ground then the individual who trains grappling will generally win. It matters very little what striking is brought to bear. The grappler can use whatever the hell he wants and have as close to a certain victory as is possible. Berimbolo, 50/50, worm guard, whatever."
How can it matter "very little what striking is brought to bear"?
So you make assumptions about "fighting"...
"Let's discuss only one on one hand to hand (no weapons) fights to keep self defense nuts from chiming in and derailing this discussion. (Obviously things change with different elements involved)"
and also assume an opponent with unskilled striking? Assuming a grappler, with negligible takedown skills, no training countering strikes and dealing with an opponent relying on unskilled striking. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of the point you;re trying to make.
Looking at grappling art, take judo for example....ippon means death in battle, as being dropped with a Koryu Jiujitsu throws were brutal limb breaking techniques. Compare two common ones Osoto Gari and Ippon Seionage of judo with their jiujitsu predecessors. The followup to a throw was also getting shanked. And I'd guess the grappling elements useful in the modern battlefield would be striking in the clinch and throwing your opponent to the ground rather than rolling around with a total disregard for striking and weapons.....but I could be wrong.
So prioritizing the throws and takedowns (and thus the clinch) makes sense from the fighitng pov....and the context of the sport of judo reflects this prioritizing. It doesnt seem a "cultural" thing, seems pragmatic.
I think the history of wrestling, or any form of grappling reflects this history and striking seems to have been obviously involved.....man sought to club, chop, punch, claw and smash other men and in the process ended up grabbing, lifting and throwing their opponent's to the ground and following up as needed using a weapon,, stomping, punching clawing and trying to break limbs.
So how is your specific isolated elements of grappling "...closer to fighting than striking"?? To me Muay Thai is closer to "fighitng" than your isolated elements of grappling. Judo meets it better also. Before there was judo, there was jiujitsu, before that yawara or kuniochi??? I forget, but look at the story of Nomi no Sukune, considered the father of sumo.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomi_no_Sukune