Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
Posted by: Kimo2007
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 11:26 AM
This came up in another thread and I think it's an interesting subject.
Back in the early 90's the UFC and BJJ exposed the striking arts weakness in grappling and ground fighting.
The question is how did this happen? It's not as if grappling and ground fighting was discovered in 1993 by Hoyce Gracie.
At some point the training was marginalized and even removed altogether. My thought is there had to be a reason.
I have some thoughts but before the thread becomes a take Kimo to woodshed event I am throwing the question out there to see who if anyone might have some insight or information on the subject.
Posted by: butterfly
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 12:07 PM
Kimo,
I have no set-in-stone historical information. Wish I did.
All I have are guestimates and my pet ideas. One-on-one, grappling and other martial arts integrating ranges, qualified by the folk actually fighting, were/are great.
But I would be willing to bet that historically, if you throw in multiple antagonists and weapons, the appeal of being on the ground becomes much less. If you figure on weapons use, then movement of that weapon and agility to perform with it offensively and defensively has a requisite need for the performer to have his feet under him.
If you sort of go with this particular mental flow, then move yourself back into a time and place where guns were not available, but a knife or bladed weapon was....my surmise is that folk focused mostly on standup because of the expediency presented in a framework for unarmed combat that recognized possible handheld weapons, even for unarmed defenders, which nixed a lot of groundwork and which filtered through to the modern derivates of these classical arts.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 12:21 PM
Interesting post, and I couldn't even pretend to know the answers for sure. But I have some suppositions. Obviously, changing the arts for sporting sake has resulted in narrow focus styles fit for specific competitions. But that doesn't speak as to one being better or more dangerous than the other - judo and TKD are both Olympic sports.
Culture may make some impact as well. On another post, cxt mentioned that the Okinawan karate tradition may have minimized groundfighting training in karate because various forms of wrestling were practiced in a widespread manner from childhood. Thus, the karate could be specialized for striking training.
I imagine the need for groundfighting could be related to the prevalence of weapon use in the society, or the degree of miltary prescence, or cultural taboos (or lack thereof) regarding 1-on-1 combat (as opposed to ritual or sport).
Tough question, possibly needing some particular temporal or cultural focus.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 12:29 PM
Its always been known that a good Wrestler or Judoka is hard to beat because they practice full resistance opposition in training.
Fighting can sometime be zone based or culture based method almost, people got locked into this is how you fight. There was a time when people would let someone stand back up. That was acceptable you fought standing up or you fought on the ground long enough to stand back up. A lot of vetarns knew that ground fighting was effective but they wanted to keep it to themselves (I have to admit the Gracies & before their time Gene Labell, refined Judos groundwork).
The Gracies/Labell bought out the value of Groundfighting and how it can be an advantage to a smaller man against a heavier stronger guy that didn't want to or unfamilar with ground fighting. And you knew how to relax and save your stamina.
I have to admitt nobody brought that out as clear as they did, with their weakest link Royce, people GF but not at that level. Now most people are adequate to defend against it.
One of the reason that I observed and still see today is ground fighting is great when you are in the know or in control and you don't make major mistakes. But if you make a mistake theres no place to regroup or back away or run. I notice back in the day that even though a grounder could take a taller or stronger person down and pound him, if he failed to or took the guy down and lost the upper hand he was beaten pretty brutally.
I see that today now that most can grapple if you try to stay with a ground game without weaken the opponent you can suffer brutally.
Standing if you get hit hard or hurt bad enough you can fake it better, move or escape, grappling if youre hurt they not only can they see it, they feel it, they got you until you make them let go!
Quite frankly standing has always been safer, espeicailly when or if everybody can grapple. At one point grappling was just a part of growing up lets say in Japan/Okinawa and you didn't want to be caught compromised, so other forms were stressed. IMHO.
Thats a important fact the use of the bladed weapons probably put a big hault to groundfighting, its said that Judo the sport repeitiour of GFing is larger then Jujitsu.
Posted by: Viator
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 01:34 PM
Wrestling has never been lost, any more than boxing has. It's alright to argue that submission fighting disappeared from wrestling as the form of the sport adapted to the rules of the sport. It's been said before by other people, at their high school, if you messed with the wrestlers you got put on the ground and pounded on. Few people think about wrestling or boxing as specifically "self defense" because the idea that wrestling and boxing are merely sports is headlined more in their minds.
Others have given their opinions on why non-ground fighting martial arts were more prominent, several sighted battlefield situations. I don't buy that. Armored men with no weapons on the battlefields of ancient japan probably had a ridiculously low survival rate. All the japanese jujitsu techniques were quick kills and restraints that would allow time for an ally to finish off the opponent or for the defender to find a weapon and end the encounter. None of that allows time for the positional wrangling of BJJ. It doesn't allow time for much of anything though. Assuming you haven't incapacitated your opponent with the opening throw the man who can get a knife or sword faster wins. In that scenario no striking art has any reason to exist at all.
I don't think it goes that far back. I lay the blame specifically on the karate/TKD explosion after World War 2, and on the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. Karate and TKD are stand up arts. How long have people been talking about the hidden ground fighting of karate? Or anti-grappling hidden in the kata? Some of the old timers might chime in, but it's been my impression that that was fringe talk until the first UFC. If the Okinawans knew about the need for groundfighting and the need to counter groundfighting, and put answers into the kata, then why was it de-emphasized? Americans consider non-standup fighting dirty fighting. Kicking is dirty fighting. There was a time when not toeing up to the line and slugging it out was dirty fighting. How many boxer recently have bagged on MMA by calling it street fighting? Among the non-initiated there is a feeling that ground fighting is easily countered or not dangerous, and this was especially true before the first UFC. Pretty much everyone neglected their defense against the ground. I guess the only thing that makes ground fighting fall by the wayside it testing your own method in a non-realistic manner. Yeah, this includes boxing and karate competitions. If you only put what you know against other people who know the same things, theres never going to be any growth.
Posted by: matxtx
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 01:56 PM
I think its simply because not many martial artists or people deliberatly go out or did deliberatly go out and engage in fights with different stylist types,boxers,Wrestlers,kickboxers,etc with few or no rules.The ones that do or did ,will come to realise whats important in fighting.The fights would of told them what they need to know.
Posted by: Victor Smith
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 02:06 PM
Kimo,
Let me give some of a karate perspective to your question.
Okinawa has an old tradition of 'Sumo' (not to be mistaken with Japanese mainland Sumo) as a competitive sport between different villages. (BTW some modern Okinawan Sumo matches can be found from time to time at OkinawanBBTV.com.) It was mostly a standing grappling thworing sport.
Nagamine Shoshin wrote about the relatinship between Okinawn Sumo and Karate in his last book "Tales of the Great Okinawan Masters "(I think that's the title.)
In part that was Okinawa's grappling tradition and karate developed to cover other techniques. Most young men had some experience in their village grappling tradition.
Karate definately has some techniques in its kata directed towards someone trying to ground you. How much that was emphasized probably depends on instrucotor, etc.
My first day studying Isshinryu began working on defending yourself on the ground (and I still teach the art that way).
This does not imply karate's traditions are those of wrestling, but there are some parallels if an instructor chooses to use them or not.
Lkiewise the Okinawa Ti tradition involves their own form of grappling techniques, as I've read.
One of my seniors in Isshinryu was a Deleware State Wrestling champion, and continued foro years afterwards to work with the University of Deleware wrestling team, but wrestling was not part of his Isshinryu curricula. Likewise I know of jujutsu black belts that joined his Isshinryu program, and it wasn't for the grappling aspects.
The reasons for and against have been discussed fully. The issue is each program makes its choices, with an infinite number of study possibilites, no matter what you choose the likelihood is their remain an infinite number of things you don't have the time to study too.
When Karate was transplanated into Japan in the 1920's it was designed for a specific market, the Universities. As almost all of the young men had already studied judo in school, there was little incentive to work at Karate's grappling tradition in those arts. Many of the Japanese karate seniors were also senior judo-ka. As their tradition offered them as separate arts, why would they mix them together?
Funakoshi, btw, showed karate grappling techniques from his earliest books. He never hid their existence. But taking his program and focusing on students 4 years of University study, it would no make sense to try and include grappling into their traditions.
Then times changed, but the arts each developed in different paths.
In Japan the martial arts (trad. Japanese and Okinawan import) are a very minor practice in the population. There is a wide variety of Japanese traditions too.
There isn't one simple answer.
pleasantly,
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 03:45 PM
If you only put what you know against other people who know the same things, theres never going to be any growth.
I don't think it was growth it was recapturing what was, I spoke about this coming full circle in the 90s. I stated that once the strikers get accustom to grappling. Grappling would only be part of the cirriculum not the activity. I don't believe anything is new to fighting just reinvented by process. I don't think Grappling was layed to wayside I believe that the version of martial art striking we became used to lacked it, because it was taken out of its enviornment and we beleived it to be original.
I wrestled in high school and practiced Judo afterwards and and see how they intergrate using the best weapon at the right range is important.
The Gracies or in Brazil experimented for years before bring Judo ground fighting to the UFC, but it was not new Labelle was choking out boxers and wrestlers back in the 60s and 70s, when they challenged him. The Gracies and Labell almost squared off, Labell wanted Helois (closer to his age but not his size) instead of one of the young bucks. Thats another story.
Its just a constant circle of improvement and acknowledging what works. Those who don't believe weapons would stop groundfight obviously never trained it. In just training its startling death defying, You don't want to be on the ground aganist a weapon, unless you have to.
Victor and weapon mentined pegged it I think, I sure theres other reasons.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 03:54 PM
Kimo
I always find it really funny that Old Style "English Boxing" was even rougher than the UFC--they could and did pretty much everything in terms of strikign and kicking and grappling--plus stuff like headbutting and even naster stuff.
Plus they had to be skilled with weapons as well--several major bouts were decided thu weapons work.
But over the years as more people got into it--they had to change the nature of the fight--the grappling etc kinda fell by the wayside--until you had to ADD it all back in to create MMA.
You can see it happen in MMA right now as well--its not the art it was even 10 years ago.
And you can bet the farm that once the soccar moms start pushing their kids into it it will change even more.
So I think that there is probabaly a social component to the issue.
Another thing is that any number of Military combat teachers from about WW1 on rightly steered away from wanting to their students to grapple with anyone--a very dangerous thing with even marginally trained people--throw in knives and guns and you have a really dangerous situation.
NOTE, there still wasy grappling taught--they just spent time/focus on other thna ground games.
Strikeing/kicking is simply a better tactic in some situation than going to the ground---just as going to the ground is ALSO the best tactic for other situations.
I guess that what I'm getting at is their is probabaly NO one set reason--but likley a NUMBER of reasons that ground fighting kinda went by the wayside.
Posted by: CA_Isshinryu
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 04:16 PM
I've talked to several people about this in my karate school. The consensus we had (opinion and not fact here)was that grappling and ground fighting was great when your in a fight with one person but it's bad to the extreme when your in a fight with 2+.
My understanding of most martial training 50-100 years ago was that it was more combat based than sport or controlled encounter based.
In the end, if I'm attacked by 2+ people, if I hit the gorund I die (assuming the situation is that bad of course).
Posted by: jpoor
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 04:49 PM
The only thing I would add is that someone with good ground skills is more likely to be able to get UP again if he gets taken to the ground than your 'average Joe.'
THAT would be an advantage in a multiple attacker scenario.
Posted by: oldman
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 06:39 PM
Quote:
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
The premise is flawed. Ground fighting never fell to the wayside. It has always existed and always will. It has thrived in schools and colleges around the world. It has never ceased to be an olymipc sport. It has even thrived as theater.
The only difference now is that there is a post collegiate/ olympic professional option that is not degrading freak show i.e. professional wrestling. Few sensible human beings aspire to be a part of a sham.
There are two reasons for the current trends in the arts.
1. The ability to capure the imagination.
And
2.The ablitity to generate revenue.
In the past grappling was trained in schools not in gyms. There was very little money to be made from a high school or college or even olympic training.
With the advent of the UFC people can imagine training in a way they had not considered prior to now. They can imagine becomeing the UFC champ in the same way a guy in the 70ies
imagined they could become Brue Lee Chuck Norris or Bill Wallace.
Since most people won't or can there are those that will hope to make a living providing training to competitive hopefuls. Since there are reletivly few of those they will be forced , most likely to teach people looking to learn effective self defense. If the trainer is skilled, as in old boxing gyms they will take people under ther wing and train them to the highest level they can all the while caring for the whole person.
Standup and ground have always been there doing what they do in there respective arenas. In the 90ies they came crashing together and changed the landscape but not the underlying human needs.
Health, safety, income, to be esteemed , setting and meeting goals, to share what one learns with others in our circle of influence, and be involed in pursuits that challenge and inspire, and capture the imagination.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 07:43 PM
Quote:
The premise is flawed. Ground fighting never fell to the wayside
So far I have been reading and enjoying the responses and was planning to see what developed before I offered an opinion.
But this comment is the Chinese Kung Fu theatre equivelent of "your Kung Fu is weak" and cannot go unchallenged.
The premise of the question is valid because in certain systems it is/was ignored. I think everyone who has responded has made the leap in understanding ground fighting was around in it's many forms but people who believed they were studying a complete fighting system were not studying ground fighting and grappling very much or at all.
The premise is it has not always been that way, what happened?
Now stop causing trouble Oldman.
Posted by: Isshinryukid4life
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 09:01 PM
Amen.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 09:43 PM
As Old man stated, ground fight has NEVER fallen by the way side. It's been practiced for EONS. That some folks forgot about it or omitted it for whatever reason is another story. Why they did so has multiple answers.
It is understandable in one instance to think that ground fighting WAS omitted or forgotten about. We can clearly see that this was truly never the case for a lot of people. I think that needs to be clearly understood.
-John
Posted by: MayanWarrior
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 09:56 PM
I know we can thank the sudden surge of popularity lately of ground fighting, hence mcdojo's are poping up faster than starbucks, jamba juice spinoffs and walmarts.
Posted by: MayanWarrior
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 10:02 PM
Quote:
The only thing I would add is that someone with good ground skills is more likely to be able to get UP again if he gets taken to the ground than your 'average Joe.'
THAT would be an advantage in a multiple attacker scenario.
If your talking BJJ it is one on one not multiple attackers. how can you see other targets when you have your attention trying to get a submission hold on one person in front of you?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 10:14 PM
Quote:
I know we can thank the sudden surge of popularity lately of ground fighting, hence mcdojo's are poping up faster than starbucks, jamba juice spinoffs and walmarts.
By that you mean, the one's that weren't already in place teaching traditional martial arts?
Quote:
If your talking BJJ it is one on one not multiple attackers. how can you see other targets when you have your attention trying to get a submission hold on one person in front of you?
By being skilled enough to do so perhaps? By having eyes in the back of your head and sense for these things? By understanding that specific tactical decisions are based on circumstances? Etc. etc.?
-John
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 10:26 PM
Oldman
I think you make a really interesting point.
Hard if not impossible to seperate an art from its social context.
A number "gentlemen" in Victorian and Edwardian England studied jujutsu/baritsu etc for self defense as street crime was rampant then.
But they didn't focus much on ground fighting--they certainly taught it--just was not the focus.
One reason might be that it was that gentlemen of the period often carried sword-sticks, sturdy canes etc that could be used as very overt weapons or pressed into service as weapons of opportunity.
A entire section of savate training was devoted to the cane, once a common and indespensible item for man in public.
Then it pretty much disappered for many decades---and recently you now seeing article after article in various MA mags about "cane defense."
It all comes around again--sooner or later.
Posted by: Viator
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 10:28 PM
Quote:
If your talking BJJ it is one on one not multiple attackers. how can you see other targets when you have your attention trying to get a submission hold on one person in front of you?
Position before submission. A BJJ student should be able to pass the guard of some one unskilled pretty much at will. A BJJ student actually knows what a guard is, so they're generally not stuck in it as long. If it comes to that a quickly cranked submission can take the fight right out of most people. But hopefully, if you know your ground game and your opponent doesn't, you can escape to standing.
EDIT: Oldman said everything I wanted to say 100x better. All I can add to that my hypothesis that the UFC contributed to the rise of ground fighting as an avenue for training and also as an easily accesable sample of what ground fighting is capable of. It's common sense that a punch or kick hurts, it takes more convincing to realize what competantly applied grappling can do.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/19/07 10:31 PM
Perhaps a related question to ask is, how many times in history have striking and groundfighting been taught in a unifed manner? Is historically accurate to assume that they were often taught together in great preponderance (ie; did a "split" ever really occur)?
Posted by: Supremor
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 05:11 AM
Oldman, you said exactly what I was thinking, only more eloquently of course
Ground-fighting didn't go anywhere- it was still being trained successfully by Judoka, Brazilian Jujitsu fighters and others. The big difference was in the opportunities offered to strikers in terms of professional combat sports, compared to those offered to grapplers.
Let's face it, the biggest thing for any grappler to become part of is the Olympics, and those who compete are generally amateurs, i.e. they have another job. Other than that, what does a collegiate wrestler do when he comes out of college? There isn't much in terms of career opportunities for him.
The UFC was hugely important, because it gave wrestlers, judoka and jujitsu fighters a place where they could use their skills in a professional combat sport. Therefore, we got exposed to grappling arts through the medium of television. I think it is less a case of ground fighting disappearing, more a case of ground-fighting disappearing from the TV.
Posted by: jpoor
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 08:44 AM
I'm not talking specifically about BJJ or submission holds. I'm talking about the ability to manage the situation in order to get back to your feet quickly should you be taken down. If you're in an SD scenario, you would know (hopefully) that multiple opponents are present, or at least possible. Thus, if taken to the ground, your first priority is to get back up. Ground skill, I believe, would make that more likely.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 08:53 AM
Quote:
I'm not talking specifically about BJJ or submission holds. I'm talking about the ability to manage the situation in order to get back to your feet quickly should you be taken down. If you're in an SD scenario, you would know (hopefully) that multiple opponents are present, or at least possible. Thus, if taken to the ground, your first priority is to get back up. Ground skill, I believe, would make that more likely.
That a great point that I agree completely with. Imagine trying to get up from the ground while have NO ground game to speak of?
What most people don’t understand is, that’s hard enough to do against ONE skilled individual, never mind 3 or 4. There more skill you have, the easier it is to do. Thus again is the reason to spend a lot of time doing ground fighting. (Grappling [of some form] is one half of fighting. Why go into a fight at 50% of capacity? It makes no sense.)
-John
Posted by: SamW
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 10:40 AM
Two quick answers to the original question.
1. Tournament/competition
2. For Karate- being brought into the educational system
The 2 are interrelated and if you trace the changes in tournament sparring over the years, you'll see the path to gradually leaving more and more techniques of different kinds out (takedowns, back leg sweeps, throws, etc).
When you include grappling and ground techniques in a match with a system heavy in striking or kicking, there is a much greater chance of injury. Why do you think judo doesn't allow striking in tournaments?
The 2 types of arts went in opposite directions with what they removed for competition based on the focus of their art.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 11:49 AM
I believe that part of the equation is as you mentioned competition and making it safe and the school yard system that already had a ground base as thing went on even in Japan they grew futher apart. A prime example is Wado-ryu it almost lost its Jujitsu base because of competition and whats allowed and not allowed. Wado-ryu was Shotokan and Jujitsu mixture until recently it looked like Softer Shotokan with more sweeps.
I believe combat schools have always ground fought but they didn't do it long, and I have to admitt not to the level of the present day practictioners. We would tap out quicker to avoid injury but lost the option to fight out of locks or chokes.
I'll also add that as a form entertainment striking is more exciting to watch unless you really are a fan of equal Grappling. Now Grappling is exciting the way Royce use to doing it bc it looked like he was getting creamed and he'd pull a rabbit out of the hat ie.. Kimo and Severnson fight.
So when the other guys don't know how to finish, Grappling is exciting. Its also exciting to see two skilled Grapplers go counter after counter but that don't last long carrying another person weight burns you out quickly.
And big striking organzations are better organized I don't think boxers are no better athlets then wrestlers, overall I'd say a wrestler in better shape power and fitness wise. But boxing has a serious pro contention and probably more exciting to watch.
Striking is more exciting to watch and understand. Unless one guy don't know what he is doing.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 05:35 PM
"Ground-fighting didn't go anywhere- "
I think the point of the question is it did go somewhere, and now it has come back.
Do you deny that ground fighting is far more prevelent today then it was before 93?
I don't see how you can. Ground figting existed but as a percentage most MA's either didn't train in it or trained very little. Today virtually every MA either trains in it or agrees they need too.
So there has been a shift, grappling and ground figting has surged over the last 10 years.
I don't think changing the question is helpful or accurate.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 05:55 PM
Quote:
I think the point of the question is it did go somewhere, and now it has come back.
How can you say that? Wrestlers have been wrestling for centuries. Judo has been practiced for a LONG time. Catch-wrestling has been around in various forms for centuries.
Perhaps its just that more people are AWARE of grappling than at any other time. The internet has changed the world.
Quote:
Do you deny that ground fighting is far more prevelent today then it was before 93?
No, it definitely is. But that's because things like the internet and television have changed things as well. More people are more aware of things than at any other time in our HISTORY. Think about that.
Quote:
I don't see how you can. Ground figting existed but as a percentage most MA's either didn't train in it or trained very little. Today virtually every MA either trains in it or agrees they need too.
News travels faster than ever. It's hard to remain ignorant to things which in the past would not have even been a blip on our radar.
Quote:
So there has been a shift, grappling and ground figting has surged over the last 10 years.
Yes you are RIGHT. The wool has been lifted from the eyes of the populace. There is nowhere to hide from the realities of grappling. You are right.
Quote:
I don't think changing the question is helpful or accurate.
Of course it is. Its completely accurate.
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 06:05 PM
John makes a good point regarding the internet. Kimo, did you have a timeframe in mind for this question? Within the past 20 years? 75? 100? I think that there needs to be some sort of timeframe to make answers more relevant.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/20/07 10:37 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I think the point of the question is it did go somewhere, and now it has come back.
How can you say that? Wrestlers have been wrestling for centuries. Judo has been practiced for a LONG time. Catch-wrestling has been around in various forms for centuries.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.... When some people are not aware of something, they assume it doesn't exist.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 12:25 AM
Kimo
My High School--like many--had a wrestleing team, they competed in big meets with people comiing from all over the place, sometimes even from other states well before 93.
People have been going to college on wrestleing scholorships for 100 years plus.
Depending on what State you happen to be in, HS wrestling is nearly as big as Basketball.
HS wrestling even had its own movie--Vision Quest, back in the 80's.
So I would hardly call ground stuff "more prevelent."
A better term might be "more VISABLE."
So were kinda back to Oldman's orignal suggestion of social factors playing a major role in its larger visabilty.
Maybe the "surge" has just as much to do with more people sitting around watching TV than anything else.
Or it could equally be that Royce had a GREAT marketing idea--and don't kid yourself, that is precisely what it was.
Set up a tournament with the deck stacked as much in favor of the way he trained as possible.
NOT BAGGING ON HIM FOR IT--NOT IN THE SLIGHEST.
But he didn't glove up and try to fight professional boxers at THIER specialty either.
I have a lot of resepct for the Graices--and that they were shrewd marketers only makes me respect them MORE.
But lets face facts, if marketers can turn bottled water into a billion dollar business----the more so since depending on where you live your TAPWATER in probably just as good.
Its not much of step to convience people that "ground fighting" is where its at.
Not saying its not either----just trying to look at it from another angle for a bit.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 12:56 PM
Many interesting posts. I will say in the beginning everyone seemed to understand the question and were able to offer reasonable replys.
I don't think I ever implied the grappling went away entirely, in sport form is was quite vibriant. The point is when it came to what was perceived to be "real" fighting it was largely dismissed and not studied by fighters.
In terms of a time frame I'd say stick to the 20th century because somewhere in there is when, I believe this thought process began and became the conventional wisdom. This conventional wisdom was upended by the Gracie victories in the early UFC.
So I hope we know all understand the question and accept the premise so we can keep the thread on point.
I have more to say but have been slammed so I don't have time right now, but I will post more later to follow up on some great posts here, as well as cross swords with some of the more annoying ones as well.
Thanks
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 01:14 PM
Where or when did I say it had gone anywhere? I did say that its different now and more popular and probably more effective then the way it wa sonce trained.
The point I was trying to make is striking is more entertaining and has a better professional support system.
Wrestling and Judo have big organizations but there was no way to make a living unless you were one of few to become a coach or Olympic coach and opened a dojo. Or the near embarrassing WWF.
Boxing have farms of students with Golden Gloves, Olympic Gold really means something in boxing, and becoming a contender cna make you money and a champion make you rich.
Thats the point that I was making, now MMA has changed that but I don't think it would be as popular without the ombination of striking and groundwork. Theres plenty of Judo and non striking MMA events but they are not as popular.
Having combatants hold each other on ground is strategic but its not entertaining and thats what fill seats, thats why the changed the rule to stand them back up.
I never said that ground fighting went anywhere, I merely tried to give an oppinon why it wasn't common and stressed in the past.
CTX they did stack the deck slightly but a 250-280lb man vs a 170lb trying to do serious damage to you isn't much of a stack, he had to be sharp to win. I wouldn't say he survived it unscrachted but he did win against odds that would crush the unskilled or unfamilar opponents.
Being prepared is more then 50% of the battle, they had 75yrs of research training.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 01:22 PM
Quote:
Where or when did I say it had gone anywhere?.
I am unclear who you are responding too.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 01:25 PM
Quote:
"Ground-fighting didn't go anywhere- "
I think the point of the question is it did go somewhere, and now it has come back.
Do you deny that ground fighting is far more prevelent today then it was before 93?
I don't see how you can. Ground figting existed but as a percentage most MA's either didn't train in it or trained very little. Today virtually every MA either trains in it or agrees they need too.
So there has been a shift, grappling and ground figting has surged over the last 10 years.
I don't think changing the question is helpful or accurate.
I'm sorry I thought you were responding to my reply above yours, my bad.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 02:47 PM
Viator wrote:
Quote:
If the Okinawans knew about the need for groundfighting and the need to counter groundfighting, and put answers into the kata, then why was it de-emphasized?
I think that is the core of the question at hand.
Quote:
I lay the blame specifically on the karate/TKD explosion after World War 2,
This is my hunch as well, I also think there was a de-emphasis on fighting which meant many concepts went untested outside the Dojo's.
Quote:
Among the non-initiated there is a feeling that ground fighting is easily countered
I think this was very true for a long time, this is the weakness the Gracies saw and exploited in the UFC matches.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 03:06 PM
Quote:
So there has been a shift, grappling and ground figting has surged over the last 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are RIGHT. The wool has been lifted from the eyes of the populace. There is nowhere to hide from the realities of grappling. You are right.
So you agree with the basis of my question but continue on to argue "grappling never went away...etc"
In order for the wool to be lifted, it had to be there in the first place. How it got there is the theme of this thread.
Again, I hope this puts the semamtical issues to bed. This is a forum not a court of law, can we all agree to make the leap and understand the spirit of the question?
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 03:17 PM
Kimo
Again, just talking here.
But if folks fighting a couple of wars, some "police actions" in various nations, law enforcement, and decades of personal self-dfense and fights didn't see much of need for it---is it possible that perhaps the "need" for groundfighting might be overstated due to seeing it all over the TV??
I see the Ultimate fighter and I think "whoa, I NEED to work on my ground game."
But now that were talking about it---I can only think of a single time when anyone even tried to take the fight to the ground.
Even the guys that tried to mug me used a blitz attack with weapons rather than take the fight to the ground--and they were professional criminals--at least they had a long record for similer crimes.
There are of course a LOT of reasons why that may be--inlcuding THEY didn't have much of ground game at the time either.
You would think that if generation after generation--just here in the States--ended up needing groundfighting on a reguler-semi-regular basis then people would have cashed in on it much sooner--the focus on teaching might have been otherwise.
Again, I'm just talking here---all points are just for the purpose of discussion.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 03:23 PM
Quote:
Maybe the "surge" has just as much to do with more people sitting around watching TV than anything else.
I think this may be true for the population as a whole, but I like to look at it from the view of people who were in MA before the UFC and how they reacted and changed.
My training partner in the 80's was a wrestler. As we trained he would often take me down when I was knocking him around (which was often the case).
But at first we would laugh and get up not even realizing what were doing. Lucky for us our instructor was a JJ guy was well and he stopped us one day and said "what would you do if that really happened?"
We ended up doing a lot of training based around not being taken down, and escapes from hold but not actual BJJ or judo.
After 93 is when I decided just to be on the safe side I better study BJJ so at least I know what they are up too.
But thats me.
I think the surge is related to the fact that most people who study MA genuinely want it to work, and when they saw what a BJJ guy could do to someone untrained in ground fighting they insisted on not letting that happen to them.
Quote:
Its not much of step to convience people that "ground fighting" is where its at.
And I think in alot of ways that has happened. I also think the result is the pendulum has swung to the other side where many people think grappling is more important then striking and they are ignoring striking or just learning the basics.
I read it all the time, a punch is a punch. I liked an analogy Oldman used in another thread, it's like learning to play guitar.
I can teach someone basic strikes in a matter of months and they will be decent strikers.
But to apply those strikes, hit your targets, not get hit in the process and do it in an active live full speed enviroment against a trained person, takes years and years to achive.
Like the guitar, you can learn basic cords and play a song if short period of time, but to master the instrument takes a lifetime.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 03:24 PM
Quote:
I lay the blame specifically on the karate/TKD explosion after World War 2,
This seems to coincide with my understanding of the 'seperation' of grappling and striking in martial arts as taught in the US. I'd say even up until the late 60's, grappling (ie; judo) was still routinely a part of many martial artist's syllabus. In that era, the "open tournament" was starting to really gain prominence as a way to showcase karate and kung-fu, thus reinforcing a "split" between the two disciplines.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 03:38 PM
Quote:
is it possible that perhaps the "need" for groundfighting might be overstated due to seeing it all over the TV??
You are singing to the choir on this one, I think ground fighting is way overvalued these days, it is very important in sport fighting, but much less in actual combat fighting, being it be mugging war or whatever.
My experience is similar, the last time I was taken to the ground was when I was a kid before I spent a day in a Dojo.
That said I think it is critical to be well trained in it, because if not a great striker can be neutralized by a grappler.
But you train so you don't have to grapple if that makes sense.
Quote:
You would think that if generation after generation--just here in the States--ended up needing groundfighting on a reguler-semi-regular basis then people would have cashed in on it much sooner--the focus on teaching might have been otherwise.
You would think, but the strikers got caught in the octagon. Gracie outsmarted them. They had a flaw in their system and he took advantage of it.
But then almost every system had the same flaw and almost every system has made adjustments to remedy it.
Another thing to consider is grappling was so effective, because only one of the guys in the fight knew how to do it.
Posted by: trevek
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 04:14 PM
Personally I think it was because karate people started wearing really white gi and didn't want to get it dirty rolling on the floor
Funny thing is that shotokan became big when Funakoshi was taken under the wing of Kano, as Judo was the top dog at the time.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 09:29 PM
Quote:
strikers got caught in the octagon. Gracie outsmarted them. They had a flaw in their system and he took advantage of it.
I think there is a place for groundfighting and I train in it to a degree. However, the Octagon can not be the proving ground for its effectiveness against striking arts. There are too many rules protecting each fighter to validate any technique (except maybe a straight KTFO).
I would be more apt to use the fight that the 2 UFC contestants had back at the house as my validation. One tried to pull a subission and the other dropped him on his head on the concrete. To top it off, the guy with the fresh head wound had the nerve to complain about it as being unfair IN A FIGHT!
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 09:52 PM
Quote:
However, the Octagon can not be the proving ground for its effectiveness against striking arts. There are too many rules protecting each fighter to validate any technique (except maybe a straight KTFO).
No one is disputing that the UFC is not a streetfight. But going by the early UFC's, the idea that they were "stacked" against strikers is a bit misleading. There were very few techniques disallowed - eye gouges, fish-hooks, throat shots and maybe one or two others. There were matches won by elbow strikes to the groin, strikes to the back of the head, suplex on the head, etc. It was in fact a very good - not perfect or 100%, but still very accurate - indicator that strikers that did NOT train grappling were at a huge disadvantage compared to grapplers with even the most rudimentary striking skills.
Nowadays, it has evened out to show that you need both, for maximum effectiveness.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 10:16 PM
Good post Matt. The rules have changed to favor the strikers now. And that HAS definitely evened things out a bit more.
Kimo, let me ask you a question (not trying to hijack the thread terribly):
Do you carry weapons with you at all times and move in groups?
-John
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/21/07 11:28 PM
Quote:
Kimo, let me ask you a question (not trying to hijack the thread terribly):
Do you carry weapons with you at all times and move in groups?
Holy fighting arts setup question batman!
But I'll bite, no I never carry weapons and although I hang with a tough crowd, I don't travel in a pack.
Why (and I think I am going to be sorry I asked) do you ask?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 12:22 AM
Quote:
Why (and I think I am going to be sorry I asked) do you ask?
Just curious. I didn't know what your idea of "martial arts" were. You see, that's most people's answer to the ground fighting equation.
In other words people always say, ground fighting is bad because "he" might have friends or a weapon. So I was curious, if someone took you down in a fight, how you would choose to respond to that situation, now that you're minus both weapons and a pack of friends, that is.
Just thought I'd ask.
-John
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 04:48 PM
Quote:
The rules have changed to favor the strikers now.
How have the rules changed to favor the strikers? Grapplers are free to shoot in with a double or single leg without fear of a elbow drop to the back of the head or a hand around into the eyes.
I understand these would not make for good sport, but they are certainly great defenses for the grappler's entry.
If anything, I would say that the rules favor the ground fighter.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 05:00 PM
Quote:
How have the rules changed to favor the strikers? Grapplers are free to shoot in with a double or single leg without fear of a elbow drop to the back of the head or a hand around into the eyes.
Ground matches are stopped for "lack of action", and restarted standing-up, thus "favoring" strikers a bit there.
And remember that the early UFC's did allow elbows to the back of the head - which never stopped Royce or any of the other grapplers.
Knees/elbows to the face and punching are still allowed. Not really "favoring" the grapplers too much, huh?
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 05:08 PM
Quote:
In other words people always say, ground fighting is bad because "he" might have friends or a weapon. So I was curious, if someone took you down in a fight, how you would choose to respond to that situation, now that you're minus both weapons and a pack of friends, that is.
Well if someone took me down during a fight I would do whatever I had to do to win, and I hope I would.
I just don't think going to the ground or a clinch is a good first line of attack/defense in a self defense scenario. That doesn't mean it has no value, there are no absolutes.
This is a different thread so I don't want to say too much about it. But my position as I have stated is MA's have overcorrected the lack of ground fighting in striking arts and given it too prominent a postion as a % of Self Defense.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 09:55 PM
Quote:
And remember that the early UFC's did allow elbows to the back of the head
I seldom watched the stuff in the early days, so I don't know what the rules exactly were. I did have a discussion with one of the early guys and he said it wasn't as "no holds barred" as they wanted people to believe.
What I can say is that I did not see much in the way of stand up skill in the early matches I saw. Second, I don't think a straight down elbow was ever allowed because it would kill a man - no ifs ands or buts. If it was allowed, none of the strikers knew how to do it.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 10:10 PM
Quote:
What I can say is that I did not see much in the way of stand up skill in the early matches I saw.
*Sigh*
No stand up skill? There were professional boxers and champion kyokushinkai guys in there, so no skill compared to who? Remember that Royce is far from the best fighter in the Gracie clan, and he was owning everybody back then.
Quote:
Second, I don't think a straight down elbow was ever allowed because it would kill a man - no ifs ands or buts. If it was allowed, none of the strikers knew how to do it.
I don't have the rules from the early UFC's at hand, but many competitors used them, on the ground and standing - watch them for yourself. No one died. A lot of them didn't even get KO'd.
This was the good thing about the UFC - it debunked a lot of the "certain kill/KO" technique myths. Or not.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 10:20 PM
I look at the responses on this forum and I realize that soon, any benefit that was derived from the advent of modern MMA may be lost. This is because the lessons learned could be lessons forgotten (or never learned in the first place because the original days of the UFC are over).
It's funny how many people with biases will down play grapplers anymore as if they're NOTHING. EASILY beatable. "All you have to do is__________" (fill in the blank with any "deadly" technique you choose).
I remember when grapplers went undefeated. Now they're nothing to some folks. Amazing. We've come full circle and are now slowly moving backward to where we were BEFORE the first UFC when no one knew anything about grappling.
Back in the old days it was; "Grapplers? Oh they're nothing to worry about. Just don't let it get that far (the ground). Just elbow them in the back or gouge their eyes....they're completely powerless to those things...."
Now years later, we're back to; "Grapplers? Oh they're nothing to worry about. Just don't let it get that far......"
That's perfectly fine with me. I'd just as soon not have anyone know anything about grappling anyway. Makes those folks as easy to beat down as all the TMA guys were in the first few UFCs.
-John
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 10:38 PM
...and we're back to using the UFC as the end-all be-all measuring stick.
ask any police officer with experience in high crime neighborhoods - they avoid taking a fight to the ground for a host of obvious reasons.
maybe a one on one bar fight, where one ego is trying to dominate another, will you most likely see groundfighting skill put to use.
if you want to 'dominate', spend most of your time ground fighting. if you want to remove yourself from the threat as quickly as possible, stay on your feet.
common sense.
I'm only talking about intent..but stuff happens and attacks that last long enough to be a struggle do seem to always go to ground - which is why it's better, if you are training for well-rounded self-defense, to have ground fighting skill.
some TMA's choose to only train with response to initial attack. that perhaps makes them less well-rounded, but it does not necessarily make them 'less effective'.
know what I mean?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 10:47 PM
Quote:
...and we're back to using the UFC as the end-all be-all measuring stick.
Can you think of a BETTER one?
Quote:
ask any police officer with experience in high crime neighborhoods - they avoid taking a fight to the ground for a host of obvious reasons.
Are you serious? They take folks DIRECTLY to the ground. Ed, I’ve had cops training with me.
Quote:
maybe a one on one bar fight, where one ego is trying to dominate another, will you most likely see groundfighting skill put to use.
Who’s stupid enough to fight multiple opponents?
Quote:
if you want to 'dominate', spend most of your time ground fighting. if you want to remove yourself from the threat as quickly as possible, stay on your feet.
common sense.
Right. And that ALWAYS means running away and avoiding fighting from ANY range, wouldn’t you say? If so, I agree.
-John
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 10:53 PM
sorry, I was adding to my post while you were responding...
'taking a fight to the ground' is different than gaining control while standing and submitting on the ground to make an arrest, John.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 11:01 PM
JKogas
A "better" one?
I don't know, but as long as we understand the limits and drives of the UFC its resonably seviceable--but the sun does not rise and set on the UFC.
At the end of the day its a business and its techniques and tactics etc are driven by what the customers--not overt combat effectiveness--find appealing.
Not a slam, just the way it is.
LEO's take people to the ground for far differnt reasons than a civlian might--mainly to cuff them.
Its not an either/or, ground fighting is a TACTIC sometimes a stratagy.
Better to be prepard and have options than not.
If your assuming that you can't or won't be taken to the ground--I would guess that is exactly the skills your going to end up needing.
Its almost always the stuff you really don't know that gets you hurt.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 11:02 PM
Quote:
Quote:
...and we're back to using the UFC as the end-all be-all measuring stick.
Can you think of a BETTER one?
nope. I can't think of any end-all measuring stick.
Quote:
Quote:
maybe a one on one bar fight, where one ego is trying to dominate another, will you most likely see groundfighting skill put to use.
Who’s stupid enough to fight multiple opponents?
exactly. so the objective is to stay on your feet.
Quote:
Quote:
if you want to 'dominate', spend most of your time ground fighting. if you want to remove yourself from the threat as quickly as possible, stay on your feet.
common sense.
Right. And that ALWAYS means running away and avoiding fighting from ANY range, wouldn’t you say? If so, I agree.
well, running away is the best case if possible...but that doesn't necessarily eliminate the threat.
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/22/07 11:58 PM
to respond to the original question ...it the case of Karate, even in the 20's, when it was named, many aspired to make it competitive sport - perhaps even someday being accepted into the olympics like some of it's other big foster-brother Budo Arts. The direction of point-sparring seems to have shifted it's focus to an exclusively percussive Art to delineate itself from Judo for instance, which is non-percussive. WWII narrowed that focus further, and the direction of recreation/sport resumed after the war.
prior to all that, it's hard to say since nothing was formalized or categorized into 'styles'. most likely a diversity of skill depending on what/who was available in the area.
From what I've read, it doesn't seem the 19th century had very much more need for weaponless combat skill than today. personal weapons available then were just as deadly. and random violent crime rates were arguably lower.
were Chinese largely unaware of groundfighting skills for a thousand years since most Arts written about seem to exclusively be stand-up and partial-ground fighting arts? or did the need of defending on two feet outweigh the urgency of defending from all fours?
Eastern ground Arts seem to surround submissive arrest-like technique. whereas the Western counterparts seem to have been competitive sport since the first olympics. A history of different focuses and intent.
perhaps Karate 'lost' it's ground-art aspects when it was stopped being used/taught to civilian police and instead taught at Universities. The need usually facilitates the change.
now the 'need' is there for MA's to compete in the marketplace by offering everything MMA has on the menu. That doesn't necessarily make the other MA's more authentic by tapping into the 'lost' aspects of the Art - it's largely marketing - although it does seem like a good direction if the training integrates the ranges. hell, if it's fun, then that alone makes it worth it. now...I'm waiting for Taichi to offer a groundfighting aspect.
all just speculative opinion.
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 12:12 AM
Matt,
As I said, I did not watch much in the way of early UFC. What I saw was a bunch of guys that could have easily been taken from the local bars and tough man contests.
Second, as I said, I don't know what the early rules were. I know there were fewer.
Also, I am not against ground fighting. I have studied it rather extensively through wrestling and Harimau Silat. It certainly has its points. I personally prefer to take a person down and remain lording over them.
Lastly, my statement about an elbow to the back of the skull/neck is not propagation of a martial arts myth. It is Anatomical and Medical Fact. I don't speak from the viewpoint of a stand up fighter who wants to justify what I do. I am a medical/anatomy professional. Don't overlook what is being said and by whom. I am merely saying that a lot of rules are designed to protect the fighters, and in my opinion, they give some freedoms to the grappler. The most common thing to hear the ref say in a UFC fight is "watch the back of the head". It gets said a lot and for good reason.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 10:44 AM
Wow. Lots of good back-n-forth here! Genuinely enjoying all the different viewpoints.
Quote by Ed Morris -
Quote:
'taking a fight to the ground' is different than gaining control while standing and submitting on the ground to make an arrest, John.
Is it? I'm not sure I see the distinction. But I know I see officers use it on every episode of COPS I have ever seen, LOL.
Quote by cxt -
Quote:
Its almost always the stuff you really don't know that gets you hurt.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote by Ed Morris -
Quote:
were Chinese largely unaware of groundfighting skills for a thousand years since most Arts written about seem to exclusively be stand-up and partial-ground fighting arts? or did the need of defending on two feet outweigh the urgency of defending from all fours?
Good point, and something I have wondered about myself, although Mongolian wrestling traditions fit in there somewhere, I guess.
Quote by Saisho -
Quote:
I am a medical/anatomy professional. Don't overlook what is being said and by whom. I am merely saying that a lot of rules are designed to protect the fighters, and in my opinion, they give some freedoms to the grappler. The most common thing to hear the ref say in a UFC fight is "watch the back of the head". It gets said a lot and for good reason.
I understand your point. I am NOT a medical professional, but I know what I have seen.
Just trying to make a point that not every elbow to the back of the head means death for the receiver. I still don't see this (disallowing elbows to the back of the head) as a gigantic disadvantage for the strikers, as they still have full use of knees, elbows and punches to the face. JMO.
Posted by: oldman
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 11:07 AM
Hey Guys,
Quote:
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
I think one way to change and clarify the question a bit is to ask...
Why DOES ground fighting fall to the way side?
One reason is that it is very hard. The more difficult an endeavor is the fewer people wil stay with it. Particularly if the payoff for the behavior is not immediate. Long term training for something that might happen in the future is like the dicipline of saving money. Most people don't because there is no immediate pay off. People miss the value of incremental gains and compounding your investment wheither its money or time on the mat. The more intangible the payoff the higher the dropoff rate.
So the number one reason ITS HARD!
Reason #2. They don't need it.
Well they may or may not. If we look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs you can figure out why the person is choosing to train it. If it is for self defense a person may be on the very low end of the needs scale and trying to meet there needs for safety. If so there are probably better ways to do that.
people try to do the same with TMA. There are more effective faster means to do that so grappling or karate may be a waste of time.
If on the other hand one wants to take responsiblity for their health and wellbeing. Belong with a group, learn grow, challenge and stimulate themselves and ultimately explore the meaning and purpose of their lives grappling is as good a way to do that as any.
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
It's hard and people meet their needs in other ways.
Once again what is the reward and how does it capture the imagination?
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 12:36 PM
Excellent post, Mark!
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 12:39 PM
CXT wroteQuote:
A "better" one?
I don't know, but as long as we understand the limits and drives of the UFC its resonably seviceable--but the sun does not rise and set on the UFC.
I agree. But it isn’t necessarily the “UFC” that I’m referring to so much as the live environment. IMO, there should be SOME sort of “acid test” through which a person is able to test themselves and their technique. That can be any given thing so long as it reasonably allows resistance and allowance for all “ranges” of h2h and allows folks to train against other, reasonable skilled and conditioned athletes (as opposed to drunk, out of shape, chain smoking, slobs - by way of comparison).
Quote:
At the end of the day its a business and its techniques and tactics etc are driven by what the customers--not overt combat effectiveness--find appealing.
Certainly so, though again my mention of the “UFC” was merely an example.
Quote:
LEO's take people to the ground for far differnt reasons than a civlian might--mainly to cuff them.
Of course. They also do so to keep them under greater control before cuffing them in the way armed guards might place prisoners on the ground. The object being to control them and limit their movements.
I once saw a security guard tackle a person at an amusement park. It was interesting because the guy (big strong man) was moving around like a boxer beating this other guy (a patron) senseless. The guard came in and the guy squared off with him. Throwing shots in a controlled manner. The guard used a fairly unsophisticated, “red neck” tackle and took the guy straight down. No more boxing. Then his partner joined him a moment later and everything was basically cool.
What’s the point of this story? I don’t know, lol. Basically that ground fighting is often the best strategy when it appears that you could be knocked the F out.
Quote:
Its not an either/or, ground fighting is a TACTIC sometimes a stratagy.
That’s been my opinion for a long time.
Quote:
Better to be prepared and have options than not.
Exactly, which is why I’m always encouraging people to be well rounded.
Quote:
If your assuming that you can't or won't be taken to the ground--I would guess that is exactly the skills your going to end up needing.
Its almost always the stuff you really don't know that gets you hurt.
Bingo! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Ed_Morris wroteQuote:
nope. I can't think of any end-all measuring stick.
But the question was, can you think of a BETTER measuring stick? I'm betting you could think of a WORSE one, correct? I know I can. How about point sparring for starters?
Quote:
so the objective is to stay on your feet.
No. The objective is to avoid fighting.
Quote:
well, running away is the best case if possible...but that doesn't necessarily eliminate the threat.
Neither does choosing to stay on your feet and "trade" blows with your opponent.
-John
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 01:46 PM
I added this earlier - and I agree with most of your views...
I'm only talking about intent..but stuff happens and attacks that last long enough to be a struggle do seem to always go to ground - which is why it's better, if you are training for well-rounded self-defense, to have ground fighting skill.
some TMA's choose to only train with response to initial attack. that perhaps makes them less well-rounded, but it does not necessarily make them 'less effective'.
--
If it is someone's occupation or demograph that regularly puts them in high risk situations then it does make sense that they would train handling all ranges. ...The rest do MA for mostly enjoyment and the other aspects Mark has mentioned.
so if a person chooses boxing and it's specific fighting range for enjoyment, does that necessarily make them ineffective at defending themselves? of course not. even though, granted, you can't say they are any more 'rounded' than a grapple range-only artist. but we also cannot say that either one is ineffective just because they don't train all ranges.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 01:57 PM
Ed Morris wrote:Quote:
I'm only talking about intent..but stuff happens and attacks that last long enough to be a struggle do seem to always go to ground - which is why it's better, if you are training for well-rounded self-defense, to have ground fighting skill.
I argue that the choice to go to the ground can sometimes be a preferred strategy.
Quote:
some TMA's choose to only train with response to initial attack. that perhaps makes them less well-rounded, but it does not necessarily make them 'less effective'.
I disagree. To train to respond to the initial attack is to train with the assumption that you CAN deal with the initial attack. My opinion is, that response may not be sufficient to deal with repeated attacks.
Quote:
If it is someone's occupation or demograph that regularly puts them in high risk situations then it does make sense that they would train handling all ranges. ...The rest do MA for mostly enjoyment and the other aspects Mark has mentioned.
Of course. Training should always be for enjoyment. That’s my opinion.
Quote:
so if a person chooses boxing and it's specific fighting range for enjoyment, does that necessarily make them ineffective at defending themselves?
Not necessarily, no.
Quote:
even though, granted, you can't say they are any more 'rounded' than a grapple range-only artist. but we also cannot say that either one is ineffective just because they don't train all ranges.
You could say that if one chooses boxing, he/she may or may not be effective at that range. But you possibly CAN say that if they end up on the ground, they could be screwed. Of course, it’s ALL a crap-shoot anyway isn’t it?
-John
Posted by: jude33
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 05:49 PM
Quote:
so if a person chooses boxing and it's specific fighting range for enjoyment, does that necessarily make them ineffective at defending themselves? of course not. even though, granted, you can't say they are any more 'rounded' than a grapple range-only artist. but we also cannot say that either one is ineffective just because they don't train all ranges.
I think all ranges/ techniques have to be trained. If a person only trains in boxing finds his self on his knees or his back what might he do? His instincts might dictate he only tries to get up? In that situation he would more than likely lose against some one who has experience in that part of a fight. Perhaps the difference between winning and losing might be missed chances
I think old man was correct. Ground fighting might require a lot of hard training. Perhaps in the UFC the fighters have become quite skilled on the ground? Therefore less takedowns?
Jude
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 09:52 PM
Quote:
I think all ranges/ techniques have to be trained. If a person only trains in boxing finds his self on his knees or his back what might he do?
I think if people sincerely train for "self-defense" and intentionally don't include all ranges, they have their heads in the sand. You leave a hole in your defense by doing so.
If people train just for enjoyment, then they should do whatever gives them enjoyment.
Quote:
I think old man was correct. Ground fighting might require a lot of hard training.
Actually I don't think it's any harder than any decent boxing or kickboxing program. In fact, its often easier. Jiu-jitsu is the "gentle art" for a reason. Often grappling isn't trained in this fashion but that's another story.
Quote:
Perhaps in the UFC the fighters have become quite skilled on the ground? Therefore less takedowns?
I don't know that there are less takedowns. But more wrestlers are in the UFC than any other time. You often can't tell because many of them prefer to keep a fight standing (think Liddell).
-John
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/23/07 11:38 PM
So been offline for awhile and it's seems the posts have veered off and on topic and back off again, but the give and take is nice.
I think we all agree that being well rounded is a good thing to be. I think we all also think that there are times when ground tactics (LEO) are a good first choice.
But I always seperate a person who's job it is the keep order (LEO, bouncer, etc) from the average person walking down the street.
Sure you grapple lovers you can think of scenarios that going to the ground is a good idea, I have said repeatedly, there are no absolutes. It's not black and white, there are variables.
But chosing grappling over striking (assuming you can do either) is the exception, not the rule. The recent rise of grapplings image thanks to the Gracies has many people thinking that is wrong, that is troubling to me.
Also remember that in the early UFC the grapplers won because the strikers didn't respect it and had no answer for it. Taking candy from a baby someone likes to say, well that is no longer the case, the secret is out and anyone fighting knows they need a defense to it, so the fights are more balanced skill wise.
No offense to anyone but I can't think of any competive actvity where if you compete against someone who doesn't know how to do it, you would lose. Be is basketball or BJJ.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 05:39 AM
Quote:
Judo for instance, which is non-percussive.
heheheh. What kind of Judo are you doing that lacks atemi?
Quote:
perhaps Karate 'lost' it's ground-art aspects when it was stopped being used/taught to civilian police and instead taught at Universities. The need usually facilitates the change.
You've obviously never seen Okinawan Police in action. I'd pick a fight with a Tokyo cop over an Okinawan cop any day of the week!
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 07:56 AM
If you followed the conversation, I was meaning in terms of general trend. keeping to my context, when is the last time you saw atemi allowed in olympic Judo?
try adding your own on topic theory instead of simply trying to punch holes in other's posts via out-of-context commentary.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:36 AM
Personally, I think that grappling has it's place, but as far as why it would fall by the wayside... lets look at it this way...
One on One - Grappling or Striking are both options, barring lava, broken glass, syringe pit, etc
Two Attackers - Grappling may be okay, but only in stand up if at all possible. You better have good footwork, & be able to manipulate a standing enemy with joint locks, throws & projections. Striking arts are a better option simply because you are more mobile since you are not physically connected to the enemy if only for a moment when you are striking them.
3+ attackers - same as above, but grappling or groundfighting is an even more ludicrous action. Invites a stomping.
Attacker with a blade - No grappling unless possessing unarguable mastery and extreme sensitivity. If he knows how to use it, you will not see the blade until it is deployed to slash/thrust. Being possessed of a trained reaction to take an opponent to the ground by shooting under the hands is not advised.
Multiple attackers with blade/blunt weapons - any ground fighting at this point is virtual suicide. When dealing with multiples, mobility is the best defense, barring the option of egress from the conflict.
That being said, what with the use of weapons or the simple tactic of "bringing friends", grappling is not so useful. With most of the First World Countries & their colonies being involved in battlefield combat over the last couple centuries, grappling arts and groundfighting have taken a backseat to standup striking arts what with their affording the fighter much greater mobility.
Looking at Steve Tarani's "Contact Weapons Street Survival Formula" for surviving weapon encounters, there are the following steps:
1. Break Contact Connection
2. Clear to Safety Range
3. Establish Superior Position
4. Look & Assess
The Contact Connection is all determined by range. When at Contact or Extreme Close Quarters (ECQ) Range as named by Tarani, footwork is usually not enough to reach a safe range, so you must use the upper body options along with footwork.
Loren Christensen has repeatedly stated the benefits of striking arts over grappling or ground fighting. As a career LEO with many more real life fights than any of us under his belt, I'd say he has an expert opinion worth listening to. Here is an article about Knife Attacks & the possibilities of facing a knife WHEN NOT IN THE RING...
Knife Attacks & Reality Article Donn Draeger noted in his book "The Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia" that some of the Malay/Indonesian peoples do practice grappling arts, or integrated some Judo or Jujutsu into their arts, they didn't practice groundfighting even if grappling for sport, and the more combative tribes would only practice grappling for sport or exercise but would never use it in actual combat. These peoples are, along with Filipinos, the most prolific wearers & users of blades in the world. Knives and multiple attackers are part & parcel to their systems, & they choose to not grapple for a reason. Read the book!
Here are two articles about ground fighting and blades from Joe Maffei, a guy that knows something about it, and how it greatly differs from any unarmed ground fighting. According to him, the average NHB fighter is totally unprepared, regardless of what they may think...
Groundfighting & Knives #1 Groundfighting & Knives #2
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 09:37 AM
Quote:
If you followed the conversation, I was meaning in terms of general trend. keeping to my context, when is the last time you saw atemi allowed in olympic Judo?
try adding your own on topic theory instead of simply trying to punch holes in other's posts via out-of-context commentary.
"Out-of-context"? Heh. Speaking of sportified Olympic Judo, maybe that's why Judo fell by the wayside.
Take the Martial out of an Art, & you lose the whole reason it was created. I think I'm right in context. Sorry if that point was lost while you were wrapped up in your "general trend" point
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 09:58 AM
Quote:
Hey Guys,
Quote:
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
Why DOES ground fighting fall to the way side?
One reason is that it is very hard. The more difficult an endeavor is the fewer people wil stay with it. Particularly if the payoff for the behavior is not immediate. Long term training for something that might happen in the future is like the dicipline of saving money. Most people don't because there is no immediate pay off. People miss the value of incremental gains and compounding your investment wheither its money or time on the mat. The more intangible the payoff the higher the dropoff rate.
So the number one reason ITS HARD!
Reason #2. They don't need it.
So, groundfighting is hard?
"One year for newaza, TEN YEARS for nagewaza". Ever heard that one?
Statistically speaking, you will never run into some master groundfighter in a real life SD situation. How long would it take someone to learn the basics, which would be more than enought to deal with 99.44% of aggressors out there in situations that may go to the ground?
Not long.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 10:00 AM
Kimo2007 wroteQuote:
But I always seperate a person who's job it is the keep order (LEO, bouncer, etc) from the average person walking down the street.
So list a few reasons for such so that THOSE can be debated.
Quote:
Sure you grapple lovers you can think of scenarios that going to the ground is a good idea, I have said repeatedly, there are no absolutes. It's not black and white, there are variables.
I never disagreed with you regarding that.
Quote:
But chosing grappling over striking (assuming you can do either) is the exception, not the rule.
I say running away is your primary objective and NOT fighting whatsoever. That's not choosing grappling OR choosing striking. From that point, your choice depends on circumstances.
Quote:
The recent rise of grapplings image thanks to the Gracies has many people thinking that is wrong, that is troubling to me.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. So long as people understand it's not cool to fight, they'll be safe. If they ARE able to keep their egos in check, are able to develop a nose for trouble and can live an intelligent life, most of us will be able to stay safe and never have to MAKE that choice of whether to strike or grapple. That make sense?
Barring any of that, if we have done all of those things, lived intelligently and cleanly, stayed out of trouble, etc., and we are STILL attacked, then we've been hit by a predator. In THAT situation, he will probably be armed and possibly with several accomplices. Under those circumstances, NO "martial art" is going to even the odds. So it doesn't matter WHAT you're skilled at. It won't matter if you're the greatest grappler or striker on the planet. It won't even matter if you are Jet Li.
Quote:
Also remember that in the early UFC the grapplers won because the strikers didn't respect it and had no answer for it. Taking candy from a baby someone likes to say, well that is no longer the case, the secret is out and anyone fighting knows they need a defense to it, so the fights are more balanced skill wise.
And the reason for this is because every pro fighter has learned to grapple, correct? They've done so because they HAD to, right? If so, you've just made another point of mine. Without having done that, these folks would still be beaten as easily as they ever were. So that speaks for them -- what about the REST of the populace?
However again, this point only speaks of the necessity to avoid fighting altogether. What we've learned is that people aren't pushovers. And this is true of most folks when they have something to fight for, trained or not. So again, avoid fighting but remember that if you DO choose to stand and "trade blows" with someone, you're not out of the woods. I mean, everyone likes to talk about the risks of grappling, but people quickly forget that ANYONE can get lucky and land a knock-out shot. Thats called the punchers chance. If they're bigger, than you are, it might only take ONE such blow to leave you brain dead.
Meanwhile, I have yet to see an untrained person land the "lucky gogoplata", lol
Quote:
No offense to anyone but I can't think of any competive actvity where if you compete against someone who doesn't know how to do it, you would lose. Be is basketball or BJJ.
Thats' true for the most part. People get lucky all the time though. All you need to do is get lucky once when it comes to striking. The game ends automatically when you're KTFO'd.
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 11:42 AM
Quote by Jim Judy -
Quote:
What kind of Judo are you doing that lacks atemi?
In the USA (for the most part), the question should probably be "What kind of Judo are you doing that HAS atemi?"
I haven't heard of too many schools that do much atemi here, although I am far from a judo expert.
I don't think too many people are arguing that grappling is not a great strategy against knives or multiple opponents. However, any other unarmed defense is not going to be much better.......
And, wouldn't a common tactic of the ATTACKERS in both of those situations be to put YOU on the ground? Then what?
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 11:55 AM
MattJ wroteQuote:
I don't think too many people are arguing that grappling is not a great strategy against knives or multiple opponents. However, any other unarmed defense is not going to be much better.......
That's been MY point since I've been on this board.
That said, it can be argued that clinch grappling can be the best strategy against knives aside from....running away.
And I personally (for the record) don't give a flying rats ass about anything that Loren Christensen or Joe Maffei says.
Let these "experts" say what they want. I can find many experts from any field to contradict other experts from the same field. It means NOTHING.
Discover your OWN truths folks.
-John
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 03:39 PM
Quote:
---is it possible that perhaps the "need" for groundfighting might be overstated due to seeing it all over the TV??
I see the Ultimate fighter and I think "whoa, I NEED to work on my ground game."
But now that were talking about it---I can only think of a single time when anyone even tried to take the fight to the ground.
Blasphemer!! 90% of all fights go to the ground and groundfighting is the end-all be-all of everything !!!
Seriously, though, I have to agree with you. I've only seen one fight (IRL) go to the ground and that was because both people were so unskilled they simply fell over each other. Now for all you who enjoy the ground-game, don't get offended. I'm not saying it's weak or pointless. I'm just saying it all depends on what you're training for. If you're training for self-defence, then the ground game just isn't as important...grappling skills in general, however, are very useful. I don't know, haven't met nor even heard of anyone being attacked and clobbered by a trained ground-fighter. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen to anyone, just that it's not a common thing to have to worry about. For those of you who advocate using ground-fighting for self-defence...cool. We all have our preferences and if it works, it works. But, it's not the only way. Now if you want to talk about competitive fighting, then there's no denying what a skilled grappler can do on the ground.
And since I'm posting, I suppose I could address the original topic. Why did ground-fighting fall to the way-side?....I'm guessing 2 main reasons. First, for quite some time less people have been training for real fighting/self-defence skills, and more for fun and health. Second, those who have been training for self-defence were focused on that...since you didn't have a lot of highly skilled ground-fighters roaming the streets and kicking @ss, people interested in self-defence didn't worry about it too much. Only makes sense.
Josh
p.s. oldman, really like your post....so very reasonable!
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 03:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
...and we're back to using the UFC as the end-all be-all measuring stick.
Can you think of a BETTER one?
I think it all depends on what you're trying to measure. If you're trying to measure over-all fighting skills (within a certain rule set), then it's definitely one of the best measuring stick (but not necessarily the best). If we're talking real life self-defence skills, then I'd have to say a better measuring stick is real life. If I can keep myself and my loved ones safe, then I've got the skills I need. Doesn't matter that a UFC level fighter could tear me apart.
Best,
Josh
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 03:58 PM
HaterHater wroteQuote:
I've only seen one fight (IRL) go to the ground and that was because both people were so unskilled they simply fell over each other.
That counts. I've seen a few more than that. But what does that prove? Only that it happens. Isn't that reason enough to train the ground game?
Quote:
Now for all you who enjoy the ground-game, don't get offended. I'm not saying it's weak or pointless. I'm just saying it all depends on what you're training for. If you're training for self-defence, then the ground game just isn't as important
I think your premise is flawed. If the ground game isn't important, then training for self-defense isn't important either. Using the same logic.
Quote:
...grappling skills in general, however, are very useful.
Ok, so now you're slicing and dicing. Explain the differences between "grappling skills in general" and ground fighting. To me they are one and the same.
Quote:
I don't know, haven't met nor even heard of anyone being attacked and clobbered by a trained ground-fighter. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen to anyone, just that it's not a common thing to have to worry about.
Thats what makes people such an easy mark. It's hard to beat what you don't know and haven't seen. I bet all of the TMA guys in the first couple of UFCs felt exactly the same way.
Quote:
For those of you who advocate using ground-fighting for self-defence...cool. We all have our preferences and if it works, it works. But, it's not the only way.
I think its more a question of having a complete game instead of going out at about 50% of capacity. Who in their right mind advocates being "half-assed"?
Quote:
.....Why did ground-fighting fall to the way-side?....I'm guessing 2 main reasons. First, for quite some time less people have been training for real fighting/self-defence skills, and more for fun and health.
So how does THAT argument explain anything? What are you trying to say, that grapplers don't train for self-defense? Are you also saying that training for fun and health have no bearing on self-defense? Explain your premise.
Quote:
Second, those who have been training for self-defence were focused on that...since you didn't have a lot of highly skilled ground-fighters roaming the streets and kicking @ss, people interested in self-defence didn't worry about it too much. Only makes sense.
That people were IGNORANT to ground fighting doesn't mean that not training for it makes any sense.
You train for self-defense because, "things happen". Using your line of reasoning, it's possible for things to happen - but it won't happen on the ground. Isn't that putting your head in the sand? You get beaten by what you don't know.
So you're training to prepare for violence, which probably "won't happen". So why not extend that logic to the ground? Because that could just as easily happen. Unless of course you believe that every situation you encounter will be under your control. I don't know of any reasonably intelligent person who believes that.
Thus, we train for the ground for the same reasons we train self-defense through ANY range - because events happen outside of our control. I suppose some folks are just happy drawing lines and being biased because it means less work for them. That's about the only thing I can think of. Bias and fear. We don't enjoy doing those things that we are often intimidated by.
Quote:
I think it all depends on what you're trying to measure.
Performance. The ability to perform against one's peers. That is truly all we can reasonably measure ourselves against.
Quote:
If you're trying to measure over-all fighting skills (within a certain rule set), then it's definitely one of the best measuring stick (but not necessarily the best).
So the objective is to find that "better" measuring stick than an environment where live training against other reasonably skilled and conditioned athletes (peers) can test themselves.
Quote:
If we're talking real life self-defense skills, then I'd have to say a better measuring stick is real life.
Define "real life" please. How is MMA any less real? Explain your premise.
Quote:
If I can keep myself and my loved ones safe, then I've got the skills I need. Doesn't matter that a UFC level fighter could tear me apart.
You can keep them safe (and likely even MORE safe) WITHOUT fighting. Thats beside the point.
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 07:55 PM
Quote by HaterHater -
Quote:
I don't know, haven't met nor even heard of anyone being attacked and clobbered by a trained ground-fighter.
Oh my. Oh dear. Josh, with all due respect, statements like this reflect an ignorance about "real life" fighting that borders on astonishing. You do realize that there are vast numbers of men that have trained wrestling in school (some from a young age), right? And American football players certainly wouldn't try to tackle you to the ground, either, huh?
And as noted before, a common tactic of many attackers would be to put YOU on the ground.
I am certainly not trying to say that groundfighting is the best option all the time - it isn't. But if you think it's a bad idea, or unnecessary (which your quote seems to indicate), then you are mistaken, my friend.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:12 PM
Quote:
You do realize that there are vast numbers of men that have trained wrestling in school (some from a young age), right? And American football players certainly wouldn't try to tackle you to the ground, either, huh?
Exactly. Many guys who are simply much bigger will attempt to wrestle you to the ground to use their size against you.
Quote:
And as noted before, a common tactic of many attackers would be to put YOU on the ground.
My very first fight was lost because I was anticipating a stand-up slug it out type of fight. My opponent just bent over and tackled me right to the ground. I had ZERO ground fighting skill at the time. I had NO defenses to grappling and ground fighting because -- I hadn't been training for that scenario. And that's the point. We get beat by what we're not skilled at.
But go ahead folks. Don't train it. I'd personally rather you NOT so that if we ever hook up and spar MMA, I want an easy victory, lol.
Quote:
I am certainly not trying to say that ground fighting is the best option all the time - it isn't.
And I agree completely with this. No single approach is going to be the best for every situation. Versatility is key. That's all I've been saying.
-John
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:12 PM
Quote:
MattJ wrote
Quote:
I don't think too many people are arguing that grappling is not a great strategy against knives or multiple opponents. However, any other unarmed defense is not going to be much better.......
That's been MY point since I've been on this board.
That said, it can be argued that clinch grappling can be the best strategy against knives aside from....running away.
And I personally (for the record) don't give a flying rats ass about anything that Loren Christensen or Joe Maffei says.
Let these "experts" say what they want. I can find many experts from any field to contradict other experts from the same field. It means NOTHING.
Discover your OWN truths folks.
-John
Begging your pardon, but there are FAR MORE EFFECTIVE DEFENSES against blades or weapons than grappling.
"Discover your OWN truths folk"? That's a joke. Are you out there discovering your own truth? No, you bought some BJJ BS hook, line, & sinker. Go find someone in your little grappling world that is willing to argue with Christensen about anything that really happens in the street. As for groundfighting being such an inevitability, Christensen stated that his whole time in LE he NEVER WENT THE THE GROUND UNLESS HE WANTED TO. I trust that a hell of alot more than some 90+ percentile that you BJJers throw around like it's gospel truth.
You aren't interested in well-credentialed experts with more real life experience than you could ever dream of having, such as Christensen, and then you expect anyone to give a flip what you have to say on some BB? Heh.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:33 PM
Jim Judy wroteQuote:
Begging your pardon, but there are FAR MORE EFFECTIVE DEFENSES against blades or weapons than grappling.
I wrote that, “it can be argued that clinch grappling can be the best strategy against knives aside from....running away.”
So far, you have mentioned that there are FAR more effective defenses against blades or weapons than grappling. Yet, you have failed to either explain WHY there are far more effective defenses or, provide any examples of them (aside from providing your links perhaps).
So until you do, pi$$ off
But yes, I agree. Firearms and running away would be first and second on my list respectively. Third on my list would be control of the weapon arm. I mean, you DO want to stop being cut don’t you? Right?
Quote:
"Discover your OWN truths folk"? That's a joke. Are you out there discovering your own truth? No, you bought some BJJ BS hook, line, & sinker.
Let me ask you a couple of questions please:
1) Do you know me?
2) Do you know YOU?
3) If either of the above answers are “NO’, then saying that I’m not discovering my own truths or that I bought some BJJ “BS” hook, line, & sinker would be an ASSumption on YOUR part wouldn’t it?
If the answer to that is YES, then would that not be an acknowledgment that you are a dumbass?
4) Might it be possible that BJJ is a "part" of the truths that I have discovered?
Quote:
Go find someone in your little grappling world that is willing to argue with Christensen about anything that really happens in the street.
I will argue that with anyone. You and Christensen could TAG team together and I would argue that. That is only one man and his opinion. There are a LOT of those out there. So if you want to debate facts, that’s fine. If you want to have a shouting match, your own ability to argue your points will be compromised and you’ll just end up looking like the mental midget that you probably are.
Quote:
As for groundfighting being such an inevitability, Christensen stated that his whole time in LE he NEVER WENT THE THE GROUND UNLESS HE WANTED TO.
I think I mentioned before that I don’t give a flying rats ass about Loren Christensen. Maybe you didn’t see that part. I tend to want to develop my own opinions based on my experiences and others that I know personally. I mean, as opposed to buying a few books and reading some magazines, dig?
Quote:
I trust that a hell of alot more than some 90+ percentile that you BJJers throw around like it's gospel truth.
See again, there is that assumption that because I practice BJJ that I am just a BJJer. Obviously you do not practice the art yourself? Would that be correct? If not, what would be your solution to the ground fighting scenario? I am REALLY curious to see what your answer is.
Quote:
You aren't interested in well-credentialed experts with more real life experience than you could ever dream of having, such as Christensen, and then you expect anyone to give a flip what you have to say on some BB?
Credentials don’t mean $hit.
More questions for you to ponder: How do you know that I have no real life experience?
And, who said I ever expected anyone to give a flip about whatever I have to say?
Wouldn’t the logic of any arguments of anyone on this forum be enough to stand on their own? If not, why not? Explain your answers? If you’re capable.
-John
Posted by: Leo_E_49
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:35 PM
How did this thread come to be about the effectiveness of ground fighting? Any type of fighting is good to know; you can't go wrong with more training and experience as far as I'm concerned. You just never know when you might need it.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:49 PM
I just sent Mr. Judy a nice little welcome message because I don't know if the wagon rolled around for this noob or not. I kind of get the sense that he didn't feel loved enough, lol
My God I LOVE this $hit!
-John
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 08:54 PM
Posted by: Viator
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 09:56 PM
Everybody knows the only answer to knife attacks is "teh gunz." I want to know what kind of unarmed knife counter can be produced that doesn't rely on clinch grappling and taking the attacker to the ground.
Also, Kogas. Either you or Taison posted some dog brothers stuff a while back. Have you seen Die Less Often, and if you have, any opinions? The promo video's are just beautiful. Great knife defense stuff.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 10:41 PM
Quote:
Everybody knows the only answer to knife attacks is "teh gunz." I want to know what kind of unarmed knife counter can be produced that doesn't rely on clinch grappling and taking the attacker to the ground.
Oh, you want to put them on the ground, but groundfight with them? No way.
You WANT to clinch with someone who knows how to use blades?
Posted by: Viator
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 10:51 PM
Quote:
You WANT to clinch with someone who knows how to use blades?
You're misapprehending. I only want clinch range because that's control range, I'm not talking about plum clinching to throw knees. I'd rather clinch with control than stand back in stabbing range. Preference would be to have enough distance to draw and fire, but I don't carry a gun or a knife myself.
I think your reading kogas wrong too. Unless I'm very mistaken he's not talking about double legging and working for position when attacked with a knife, he's talking about BJJ's grasp of ground combat being useful if it goes to the ground. And he's objecting to you being an asshat and labeling him as some sort of TUF noob because he practices BJJ and you practice the infinitly superior small circle.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/24/07 11:23 PM
Jim_Judy wroteQuote:
You WANT to clinch with someone who knows how to use blades?
If the knife is already IN you, you’re ALREADY in the clinch. You’ve been stuck once, now it’s important not to take that second, third, fourth, fifth, 27th stab, right? Usually it’s not the first stab that kills you. It’s all the other ones that come after because you never had control of the weapon arm.
So basically, I’m trying to PREVENT further damage by controlling the man. That is what I meant by clinching to deal with a blade.
Viator wrote
Quote:
You're misapprehending. I only want clinch range because that's control range, I'm not talking about plum clinching to throw knees. I'd rather clinch with control than stand back in stabbing range. Preference would be to have enough distance to draw and fire, but I don't carry a gun or a knife myself.
BINGO! FINALLY, someone with enough sense understands! That is exactly what I was saying. Clinch means control. NO control means more stabbing. More stabbing means you’re DEAD.
Quote:
I think your reading kogas wrong too.
Of course he is. But there was never any intention to read me correctly. Either that or he’s simply unable to. YOU seem to understand succinctly what I’ve been saying. It’s a shame that others don’t either take the time to understand my point or, have a bias against me and a resulting bitterness so sour that they can’t even BEGIN to understand. Which may be the case here.
I could be wrong, but Jim Judy somehow “sounds” familiar to me. Perhaps he will also with other long time forum veterans?
Quote:
Unless I'm very mistaken he's not talking about double legging and working for position when attacked with a knife, he's talking about BJJ's grasp of ground combat being useful if it goes to the ground.
It’s that but that’s not all. I certainly wouldn’t NOT advise anyone to go to the ground against someone armed with a knife. But you damn sure better know what to do in case you do get taken there.
My idea of grappling against a blade is more clinch oriented whereby I might be able to prevent further damage in the case that I’ve already been hit. I mean, common sense tells me to RUN LIKE HELL if I were to see someone brandish a knife in front of me. I’m sure not going to stand there and fight him empty hand, which must be the strategy being put forth by Jim Judy (although I would HATE to assume his position, even if he’s unwilling to do so with me).
Quote:
And he's objecting to you being an asshat and labeling him as some sort of TUF noob because he practices BJJ and you practice the infinitly superior small circle.
Yes. We know it’s superior because we’ve all seen those small circle guys handle the jits guys in competition. I mean, it’s COMMONPLACE, lol!
-John
PS: Jim Judy - don't say I didn't warn you!
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 12:14 AM
Quote:
Quote:
You WANT to clinch with someone who knows how to use blades?
You're misapprehending. I only want clinch range because that's control range, I'm not talking about plum clinching to throw knees. I'd rather clinch with control than stand back in stabbing range. Preference would be to have enough distance to draw and fire, but I don't carry a gun or a knife myself.
I think your reading kogas wrong too. Unless I'm very mistaken he's not talking about double legging and working for position when attacked with a knife, he's talking about BJJ's grasp of ground combat being useful if it goes to the ground. And he's objecting to you being an asshat and labeling him as some sort of TUF noob because he practices BJJ and you practice the infinitly superior small circle.
Well, thanks for not resorting to your little e-insult until the last half of the post You at least seem to be more interested in making sense as opposed to pretending that something is acheived by trading insults over the Internet
Just curious, in your training, how do you move from being completely outside of range of the blade to clinching range?
Do you prefer to be inside or outside when a blade is involved?
Posted by: Ed_Morris
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 12:38 AM
Quote:
Do you prefer to be inside or outside when a blade is involved?
I'd prefer the blade to be on the outside.
(sorry, bad pun. -couldn't resist.)
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 01:51 AM
Quote:
If the knife if already IN you, you’re ALREADY in the clinch. You’ve been stuck once, now it’s important not to take that second, third, fourth, fifth, 27th stab, right? Usually it’s not the first stab that kills you. It’s all the other ones that come after because you never had control of the weapon arm.
So basically, I’m trying to PREVENT further damage by controlling the man. That is what I meant by clinching to deal with a blade.
So let me get this straight. You begin knife defense drills under the assumption that you already have the knife in you?
Have you ever been assaulted with a knife? I have, twice. I got a minor stab wound in the thigh the first time (the guy tried a jailyard rush), and a cut on the hand the second time.
Clinching was the last thing on my mind. You don't close to clinching range & THEN try to get control of the knife hand. You need to assure that you can gain control before you enter.
Quote:
BINGO! FINALLY, someone with enough sense understands! That is exactly what I was saying. Clinch means control. NO control means more stabbing. More stabbing means you’re DEAD.
Is this the logic that you were talking about earlier? Finally something that I can agree with. More stabbing means you're DEAD.
I feel a new sig coming on...
Quote:
Of course he is. But there was never any intention to read me correctly. Either that or he’s simply unable to.
Quote:
YOU seem to understand succinctly what I’ve been saying. It’s a shame that others don’t either take the time to understand my point or, have a bias against me and a resulting bitterness so sour that they can’t even BEGIN to understand. Which may be the case here.
What the hell are you on about?
Quote:
I could be wrong, but Jim Judy somehow “sounds” familiar to me. Perhaps he will also with other long time forum veterans?
Oh, so if I don't agree with you, then I must be some other guy from your past that likewise disagreed with either your posting style or your lack of understanding on certain aspects of Martial Arts/Life/Whatever, or also thought you come across like a
It must be that I am someone from your past come back to e-haunt you!!!
It has to be a conspiracy of some sort, because heaven forbid there may actually be more than one person out there that disagrees with you & your little world view.
Quote:
It’s that but that’s not all. I certainly wouldn’t NOT advise anyone to go to the ground against someone armed with a knife. But you damn sure better know what to do in case you do get taken there.
Okay, I can get on board with that. Never let it be said that I think groundfighting is useless. Staying there, however, is a waste of time.
Quote:
My idea of grappling against a blade is more clinch oriented whereby I might be able to prevent further damage in the case that I’ve already been hit. I mean, common sense tells me to RUN LIKE HELL if I were to see someone brandish a knife in front of me. I’m sure not going to stand there and fight him empty hand, which must be the strategy being put forth by Jim Judy (although I would HATE to assume his position, even if he’s unwilling to do so with me).
I likewise would opt to run, if I could. That's a given.
When discussing running, however, I'd spend time on a track&field forum.
When discussing knife defense, I frequent MA forums.
Posted by: Ames
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 02:34 AM
Actually Jim_Judy, most knife defence systems that I'm aware of include what I would call 'graplling'.
As a matter of fact, in terms of Koryu Japanese arts, they all include lots of blade work--both ofensive and definsive, and they all include some from of 'grappling'.
Quote:
Clinching was the last thing on my mind. You don't close to clinching range & THEN try to get control of the knife hand. You need to assure that you can gain control before you enter
Hmmm, when you 'control the knife hand' are you striking? If not, you're grappling. Old Jujutsu systems are basically a way of grappling which involves weapons.
As for the original question of what happened to ground fighting, I don't think it went anywhere. As I said, alot of Koryu jujutsu never lost it, Judo never lost it, wrestling, etc...
There is also something to be said for the point raised that many of the old masters that I'm aware of trained in a resistive grappling art (i.e., Sumo, Judo, Mongolian Wrestling etc)
--Chris
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 03:35 AM
Quote:
Actually Jim_Judy, most knife defence systems that I'm aware of include what I would call 'graplling'.
Yes, I'm aware, but my idea of grappling has grown in the last couple years.
Quote:
As a matter of fact, in terms of Koryu Japanese arts, they all include lots of blade work--both ofensive and definsive, and they all include some from of 'grappling'.
Quote:
Clinching was the last thing on my mind. You don't close to clinching range & THEN try to get control of the knife hand. You need to assure that you can gain control before you enter
Hmmm, when you 'control the knife hand' are you striking? If not, you're grappling. Old Jujutsu systems are basically a way of grappling which involves weapons.
Sometimes I'm striking, sometime I'm blocking & sticking, & sometimes I'm momentarily grappling. But I certainly don't "clinch". I don't move in until I've dealt with the blade-limb.
I used to think that all that "Koryu" stuff was great, until I got into FMAs & Silat. Now I question most of it. It seems to work great against other JMAs, but I don't use it against the Indonesian blade stuff I'm doing now. For one, I wouldn't be learning much if I didn't empty my cup, and two, it doesn't work all that well, I tried it already & that's why I switched.
Quote:
As for the original question of what happened to ground fighting, I don't think it went anywhere. As I said, alot of Koryu jujutsu never lost it, Judo never lost it, wrestling, etc...
Agreed. It's utility was brought into question and it was put on the back burner, that's all.
Quote:
There is also something to be said for the point raised that many of the old masters that I'm aware of trained in a resistive grappling art (i.e., Sumo, Judo, Mongolian Wrestling etc)
--Chris
Which old masters were those, if you don't mind my asking?
I'm not saying that grappling is bad, or that joint manipulation is bad. It's not. Being unarmed and moving into clinching range against a knife is what I objected to, especially when the other guy knows what he's doing with the blade.
Posted by: Ames
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:21 AM
Quote:
I used to think that all that "Koryu" stuff was great, until I got into FMAs & Silat. Now I question most of it. It seems to work great against other JMAs , but I don't use it against the Indonesian blade stuff I'm doing now. For one, I wouldn't be learning much if I didn't empty my cup, and two, it doesn't work all that well, I tried it already & that's why I switched.
It also worked pretty well against the Mongolian's who were the best army in the world at the time.
How long did you 'try it' for? I'm not saying it's any better than Silat. I am however saying it's a perfectly viable example of 'grappling with a knife', which you said was not the thing to do.
Quote:
Agreed. It's utility was brought into question and it was put on the back burner, that's all.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that many systems kept ground techniques and never lost them. In terms of the Koryu arts, I'm using that example because they were made for the battlefield (where the use of weapons was to be expected). These systems kept ground fighting because it's another plane of combat. The people who studied these arts knew that going to the ground was a possiblity and so they trained it.
Quote:
Sometimes I'm striking, sometime I'm blocking & sticking, & sometimes I'm momentarily grappling. But I certainly don't "clinch". I don't move in until I've dealt with the blade-limb.
I disagree with this. It's not the limb holding the blade that has to be dealt with, it's the whole person. Even when controlling the limb, his centre of gravity should be controlled. One of those meaningless things Japanese Jujutsu teaches you.
Quote:
Which old masters were those, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't mind you asking at all. A few I remember off the top of my head: Sogaku Takeda (Sumo), Morihei Ueshiba (Sumo/Judo), Chojun Miyagi (Judo) and there's a lot more than that, but that's all the names coming to me right now. My understanding is that many Samurai, besides their Bujutsu training, also engaged in more sporting wrestling. I've also read that Tai Chi push hands comes from Shuio Chio (s.p.). I know that a few of the older Bagua masters were also wrestlers. Wrestling is the primary source of all combative arts that involve joint locking.
Quote:
Yes, I'm aware, but my idea of grappling has grown in the last couple years.
I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Alot is said about how bad going to the ground is in a real fight. I would never want to do so. But it happens. I'd rather know what to there than try and scratch and claw like a cornered cat. At least someone who studies Judo/BJJ or something that involves takedowns, might not be as startled when they go there, and able to start working immediatly to stand up again.
Martial arts is training for the worst case scenerios, not the best.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:59 AM
Quote:
It also worked pretty well against the Mongolian's who were the best army in the world at the time.
Really? I would say that the "KamiKaze" was more instrumental in the Mongol's defeat.
Quote:
How long did you 'try it' for? I'm not saying it's any better than Silat. I am however saying it's a perfectly viable example of 'grappling with a knife', which you said was not the thing to do.
How long? Almost full-time from '93 to '03, JJJ was all I did in one form or another (Grappling).
Quote:
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that many systems kept ground techniques and never lost them. In terms of the Koryu arts, I'm using that example because they were made for the battlefield (where the use of weapons was to be expected). These systems kept ground fighting because it's another plane of combat. The people who studied these arts knew that going to the ground was a possiblity and so they trained it.
I don't see newaza from the knees, or on occassion lower, the same as extended time on the ground, or BJJ principles such as the Mount or the Guard.
Quote:
Quote:
Sometimes I'm striking, sometime I'm blocking & sticking, & sometimes I'm momentarily grappling. But I certainly don't "clinch". I don't move in until I've dealt with the blade-limb.
I disagree with this. It's not the limb holding the blade that has to be dealt with, it's the whole person. Even when controlling the limb, his centre of gravity should be controlled. One of those meaningless things Japanese Jujutsu teaches you.
Please don't get condescending. That sounds like some woo-woo aikido crap. Besides, I'm never going to get so confounded or captivated by that weapon hand that I forsake awareness of the rest of his limbs. However, I'm more interested in damaging that limb & getting rid of that weapon, since I always want to assume that the other guy may know something that he's not letting on, such as some highspeed weapon retention skills. Before I know it, I'm in very close range and he gets loose from my technique and he still has his weapon. Let's hope it's not on the lowline...
Quote:
Quote:
Which old masters were those, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't mind you asking at all. A few I remember off the top of my head: Sogaku Takeda (Sumo), Morihei Ueshiba (Sumo/Judo), Chojun Miyagi (Judo) and there's a lot more than that, but that's all the names coming to me right now. My understanding is that many Samurai, besides their Bujutsu training, also engaged in more sporting wrestling. I've also read that Tai Chi push hands comes from Shuio Chio (s.p.). I know that a few of the older Bagua masters were also wrestlers. Wrestling is the primary source of all combative arts that involve joint locking.
Hey, even Kimura crosstrained with Mas Oyama, punched & shuto'ed makiwara & such, and felt that it benefited his Judo. That's cool.
But Kimura the Judo master himself said that his favorite SD technique was to grab the guy's balls and squeeze as hard is he could...
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I'm aware, but my idea of grappling has grown in the last couple years.
I'm not entirely sure what this means.
Don't worry, I'm still figuring it out myself
Quote:
Alot is said about how bad going to the ground is in a real fight. I would never want to do so. But it happens. I'd rather know what to there than try and scratch and claw like a cornered cat. At least someone who studies Judo/BJJ or something that involves takedowns, might not be as startled when they go there, and able to start working immediatly to stand up again.
Martial arts is training for the worst case scenerios, not the best.
I completely and utterly agree with you there. I've been learning alot of grapple-counters and escapes that will definitely help if & when I get back to my JJJ/BBT roots.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 07:23 AM
Jim Judy wroteQuote:
Well, thanks for not resorting to your little e-insult until the last half of the post You at least seem to be more interested in making sense as opposed to pretending that something is acheived by trading insults over the Internet
Lets not forget that you fired the FIRST salvo. Don't remember? Let me remind you with your own quote:
Quote:
"Discover your OWN truths folk"? That's a joke.
Need I go on? Yes, here's more from the great Jim Judy:
Quote:
Are you out there discovering your own truth? No, you bought some BJJ BS hook, line, & sinker.
Thanks for that insult!
I'd not said a DAMNED thing or been disrespectful to you in any way on this thread prior to that. So don't be a hypocrite. Don't go around pretending that it was I who first insulted you.
Quote:
Just curious, in your training, how do you move from being completely outside of range of the blade to clinching range?
By starting with the premise that we have NOT seen the blade at all (in the first place) and then having to deal with it from the point that we have already been hit. That is the one of the more realistic scenarios.
Quote:
Do you prefer to be inside or outside when a blade is involved?
I prefer to be about a hundred yards away if that helps. I have no fantasies regarding knife fighting. Do you?
Quote:
So let me get this straight. You begin knife defense drills under the assumption that you already have the knife in you?
I’m going to waste my time and answer yes. That’s called a surprise assault. That’s because anyone with half a brain realizes that a “good” knifer won’t allow you to see the knife until he either has it IN you already or is in close (clinch) range to begin with.
Seriously, what good would it do me to brandish a blade without being close enough to USE it, lol! If I do that, most people in their right mind would simply run. If I’m a knifer, that wouldn’t allow me to accomplish my objective -- whatever that might be.
Duh?!
So it’s a “worst case scenario”, in other words. I try and deal with realities instead of getting caught up in too many “arts” which often emphasize either having a blade yourself (too late) or being to complex for reality.
I’m warning you again bro. I’m not going to waste a whole lot of time with you.
Quote:
Have you ever been assaulted with a knife? I have, twice. I got a minor stab wound in the thigh the first time (the guy tried a jailyard rush), and a cut on the hand the second time.
To answer your question, yes. I’ve been assaulted with a knife. And it happened in extremely close range.
Quote:
Clinching was the last thing on my mind. You don't close to clinching range & THEN try to get control of the knife hand. You need to assure that you can gain control before you enter.
Tell you what bro, I’m going to save myself some time and anguish and just direct you here. http://dogbrothersvideo.com/interfacetrailer.wmv
You apparently haven’t discovered yet that it’s difficult to convey meaning and context across the limitations on an internet forum.
Everyone can check out that video to give you a taste of what our weapons program consists of.
Quote:
Is this the logic that you were talking about earlier? Finally something that I can agree with. More stabbing means you're DEAD.
I feel a new sig coming on…
You’re wasting a lot of your own time.
Quote:
Oh, so if I don't agree with you, then I must be some other guy from your past that likewise disagreed with either your posting style or your lack of understanding on certain aspects of Martial Arts/Life/Whatever, or also thought you come across like a
No, you just come across like someone from my past who disagreed with my posts and also was a complete jackass.
Its one thing to disagree, it’s another to deliver it in the way you do. I have no issue at all with people disagreeing with me. I DO take issue to being disrespected..
Quote:
It must be that I am someone from your past come back to e-haunt you!!!
Don’t know. Could be. Maybe it’s someone like Krunkenstein who has the same apparent mental imbalance that you do.
Quote:
It has to be a conspiracy of some sort, because heaven forbid there may actually be more than one person out there that disagrees with you & your little world view.
Certainly people disagree with me. They just don’t do so in that same schizophrenic way that you and a select few others have. I can just see the spittle flying from your face as you read my posts and nervously get to typing.
I would offer you a chance to hook up and disagree face to face. But you’re just like every other of these VTGs that roam the internet. We could get together and train and then you might be able to more clearly see where I’m coming from.
Care to do that? After all, you have spent some time in North Carolina, is that not correct? Where do you train now?
Quote:
Okay, I can get on board with that. Never let it be said that I think groundfighting is useless. Staying there, however, is a waste of time.
That’s your opinion. Thanks for that. I’ll add it to the thousands of others that I’ve received.
By the way, the original topic of this thread which according to YOU has been “put on the back burner”, should probably resume?
If you have any further rantings against me, perhaps you should start another thread?
-John
Posted by: Ames
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 07:52 AM
Quote:
Really? I would say that the "KamiKaze" was more instrumental in the Mongol's defeat.
Although in the second invasion it did play a part, but how big? In a country steeped in religion, who knows how much they wanted to believe they were protected by the gods? In the first invasion, the typhoon was minimal.
Here's an okay history:
http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/25/30/
Quote:
I don't see newaza from the knees, or on occassion lower, the same as extended time on the ground, or BJJ principles such as the Mount or the Guard.
Well no, being on the knees is not the same. Mount or Guard are both found in Koryu systems. As for extended time on the ground, that really depends on how good you are.
Quote:
Please don't get condescending. That sounds like some woo-woo aikido crap.
How is controlling your opponents centre of gravity "woo-woo aikido crap"? Have you actually thrown any one, in real life and not controlled they're centre of gravity?
Quote:
However, I'm more interested in damaging that limb & getting rid of that weapon, since I always want to assume that the other guy may know something that he's not letting on, such as some highspeed weapon retention skills.
Damaging the limb is good sometimes, such as breaking the joint (JJJ, BJJ), hyperextension, etc.
Quote:
But Kimura the Judo master himself said that his favorite SD technique was to grab the guy's balls and squeeze as hard is he could...
Not to dispute Kimura, but, although things like this may work, often times they don't. I've seen kicks, punches and grabs to the groin the do nothing but make you're opponent more angry. Especially if he's intoxicated.
Quote:
I've been learning alot of grapple-counters and escapes that will definitely help if & when I get back to my JJJ/BBT roots.
The only thing that can help with ground fighting is learning to fight on the ground. Even an eyegouge, without the proper delivery system (i.e. groundfighting ability) has little chance of success unless the opponent is positionally controlled first, in which case there are a variety of options availible.
JKogas wrote:
Quote:
I’m going to waste my time and answer yes. That’s called a surprise assault.
This is only logical. I practice from this point all the time as well (i.e. the knife already making contact from the front or the back). I also practice with the knife being deployed early (so I see it), the knife coming at me while both I and the attacker are on the ground, or the attacker up and myself on the ground. It shows you just how difficult it is to defend against.
--Chris
--Chris
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 09:06 AM
Folks -
This has been a pretty informative thread. Let's try to stay on topic and not resort to E-nsults. The knife-vs-grappling is interesting stuff, but should be a thread of it's own. Perhaps someone would like to start one?
Let's try to keep this one on track, please.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 10:22 AM
Jim
I have to ask--given you assertion that find Koryu defenses lacking in dealing with knife attacks from "other" styles of knife work.
How do you know what kind of training your attacker has?????
Your correct in that most if not all systems were developed to deal with SPECIFIC situtations---Koryu work was developed with the particular threats they were most likely to deal with---as was just about everybody else.
It still begs the question, if the guy that is attacking you does not hail from the style your used to/the style your training to defeat, then it comes down to how you good you are with what you have--how fast you "shift gears" so to speak--bascially it comes down to YOU, not your style or your training per-se but YOU
In context and on-topic
Its interesting to note that cultures that frequently employ bladed weapons, didn't focus much on ground fighting.
Oh, they taught it certainly, but they tended to fight shy of focusing on it when blades were commonly carried by everyone.
Its only after the time that blades were no longer in general use did people switch to a ground game focus.
Posted by: TroTro
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 12:58 PM
Why did ground fighting fall to the way side?
Just my observation... could be wrong. I think the introduction of effective weight training methods from the West (modern weight training) is a key element of bringing ground fighting and grappling back to the spot-light.
For example, let say for people of practice Chinese King Ku in China in history. The was no weight training like in modern days, plus with the food/diet Chinese ate in old days... majority of old-generations-Chinese (Han) were light-weighted, skinny and short, compare to the Westeners in modern time. Now try to imagine the effectives ground-fighting or grappling with such body type (skinny, lack of weight training). Even the monks in Shoalin Temple were vegetarian...
IMHO, traditional (asian) martial art training method is not gear toward westling, grappling, ground-fighting. With modern weight training, it raises the bar of grappling, especially ground-fighting.
Posted by: Xibalba
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 01:21 PM
Quote:
IMHO, traditional (asian) martial art training method is not gear toward westling, grappling, ground-fighting. With modern weight training, it raises the bar of grappling, especially ground-fighting.
Hi TroTro.
Interesting hypothesis, but I have to disagree. Although strength and conditioning are bonuses in grappling, proper technique, leverage and good timing are the keys to success. I have been trounced on the mat by folks who are much smaller than me (i.e., giving up 30lbs or more) before, due to their wealth of experience and excellent technique. And conversely, I have dominated folks at least 50lbs heavier than myself due to my experience/their inexperience.
And (although I am sure someone will flame me for this ), need I remind you that in the first few UFCs, Royce Gracie, not even 180lbs soaking wet, trounced many bigger, stronger opponents with little trouble. And then there was that fight in which he submitted Akebono the sumo wrestler. So, although size and strength are advantages in grappling (as they are in all ranges of fighting), skill and technique is really what counts.
Peace,
Mike
Posted by: TroTro
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 01:43 PM
I agree technique is important. However, I am wondering how much weight/strength is enough? Or minimum?
As Xiabalba mentioned, Royce Gracie was about 180 lbs in 1st few UFC. Maybe it is not huge in U.S. But in the place where I was borned and raised (Hong Kong, 15~ years ago), average male adult weight in that region was like 120~130 lbs?
I understand that weight is NOT the absolute factor, but it may influence which martial style a person is preferred. Less people practice the art, less development for the art.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 02:04 PM
Tro
I respectfully disagree. Respectfully.
In the first place weight/strength/resistance training was used by many if not all chinese martial arts--to a degree at least.
And the okinawans employed it across the board by pretty much eveybody--and they had a specific grappling tradition of some sort already.
2nd, China is a HUGE place, so you had many different body types.
3td and perhaps most important, body weight/size/mass arguments are only relevent when comparing 2 DIFFERNT groups.
If everyone is "skinny" then clearly being the STRONGEST "skinny" person is to your advantage.
Weight training counts BIG is every one is "light weight, skinny and short."
Its apples to apples at that point.
In fact if everyone is assumed to be "light weight skinny and short" then there are even MORE reasons to weight train--offers larger advantages to the ones that do it.
Also, now that I'm thinking about it--it would also ENCOURGE ground fighting as one of the larger obstacles to grappling is people of larger mass having a distinct advanage.
If I only have to worry about "skinny, short and light weight" people then I should focus on MORE ground fighting, not less.
The result should have been MORE ground fighting--not less.
(Gracies and other highly skilled people aside, I used to wrestle as a very light middle weight and I personally speak to that fact that heavy weights--even mediocre ones had tremendous advantage over their lighter team-mates in practice--you had to be MUCH better then they were to beat the mass/strength.)
Unless of course there are other factors to consider.
As mentioned almost all eastern martial arts traditions had grappling/ground fighting content--they just had different foci.
I still find it very interesting that for the most part it wasn't until people stopped carrying knives and various bladed weapons as a matter of course that ground fighting became more popular.
Although again, now that I'm thinking of it, there is a least one style of chinese martial arts--so called "Dog Boxing" that puts plenty of focus on ground fighting.
Don't know much about it though--only what I can google, so the specifics I really don't know.
Posted by: jude33
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 02:37 PM
Quote:
Personally, I think that grappling has it's place, but as far as why it would fall by the wayside... lets look at it this way...
One on One - Grappling or Striking are both options, barring lava, broken glass, syringe pit, etc
Two Attackers - Grappling may be okay, but only in stand up if at all possible. You better have good footwork, & be able to manipulate a standing enemy with joint locks, throws & projections. Striking arts are a better option simply because you are more mobile since you are not physically connected to the enemy if only for a moment when you are striking them.
I think your basing your assumptions on to narrow a field
and creating an argument based on reading other peoples written works.Perhaps striking might be a better option if the fight remains standing but it still doesnt mean to say
no ground work training is needed.
In a fight a person could end up in any position.
Therefore the need is there to strike grapple and throw from any position a person finds themselves. Yes in this scenario idealy strike but remember there are more than the one combatent to dictate how the fight is fought.
What will a person do in they are on there knees? Where is their footwork?
Strike grab tear throw grapple depending on where they find themselves.
In a defence situation a person does what a person can.
They can only do what they can if they have trained it.
Your stating ideal scenarios.
Quote:
3+ attackers - same as above, but grappling or groundfighting is an even more ludicrous action. Invites a stomping.
Again your talking as if only one combatent will dictate how the fight goes. Now there are 4 people fighting. So by your assumption the person being attacked is given a choice by his attackers? And he will stand ? He will ask his attackers if its ok with them?
Of course not. If the attacked cant run he will have to do what he can.
Idealy staying upright might be the right choice but have you told the attackers the rules before the fight?
I have a specific technique that is in a trad karate kata.
This technique is also used by a lot of other arts including LEO's seemimgly. Its a wrist grab arm bar the opposite elbow with the opposite hand and throw opponent face down.It takes a second to perform. I use it when the opportunity lets me. I am learning more grappling throws etc because I know through study experience and watching seminars from people like Geoff Thompson who have had years of experience in this kind of work (including knife attacks his friend was killed in one) that I need to study it.
Your dreaming stating the ideal situation.
My first rule of self defence.Train to run fast and far
Second rule of self defence. Learn to fight from every position and to learn and practice as much as I can
Fights dont go according to plan. The ability to use everything striking grappling throws groundwork is essential to survive such an encounter
Quote:
Attacker with a blade - No grappling unless possessing unarguable mastery and extreme sensitivity. If he knows how to use it, you will not see the blade until it is deployed to slash/thrust. Being possessed of a trained reaction to take an opponent to the ground by shooting under the hands is not advised.
Multiple attackers with blade/blunt weapons - any ground fighting at this point is virtual suicide. When dealing with multiples, mobility is the best defense, barring the option of egress from the conflict.
That being said, what with the use of weapons or the simple tactic of "bringing friends", grappling is not so useful. With most of the First World Countries & their colonies being involved in battlefield combat over the last couple centuries, grappling arts and groundfighting have taken a backseat to standup striking arts what with their affording the fighter much greater mobility.
Again your presuming again the person attacked can define the rules.Your stating ideal scenarios as thought the attacked has a choice.
The judo part. I study judo. The only strikes are in a kata
as is the kata for old jujitsu techniques. Most judo guys study other arts for striking. A technique in kata has to be brought to life by an able practioner.
Judo is not practiced for striking just as throws and grappling are not practiced in boxing.
Jude
I think your basing your assumptions on someones written works not direct or someones direct experience.
Posted by: Ames
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 02:46 PM
Quote:
This has been a pretty informative thread. Let's try to stay on topic and not resort to E-nsults. The knife-vs-grappling is interesting stuff, but should be a thread of it's own. Perhaps someone would like to start one?
Sorry about that Matt.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 04:31 PM
Quote:
And (although I am sure someone will flame me for this ), need I remind you that in the first few UFCs, Royce Gracie, not even 180lbs soaking wet, trounced many bigger, stronger opponents with little trouble. And then there was that fight in which he submitted Akebono the sumo wrestler. So, although size and strength are advantages in grappling (as they are in all ranges of fighting), skill and technique is really what counts.
Peace,
Mike
Hey, you called it. Techique can be the equalizer when there is disproportionate size & strength in a fight
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 04:45 PM
Jim Judy
Granted, but just as "Spud" Webb outperformed many of his competitiors--how many "Spud" Webb's are there in the NBA???
Boxing/Wrestling have weight classes for a reason.
As does the UFC itself.
For equally valid reasons.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:22 PM
Quote:
Sorry about that Matt.
Ames -
I was not directing that at you, or anyone in particular. You just happened to be the last person in the thread at the time I responded. There has been plenty of mudslinging (myself included), and I just didn't want it to get too out of hand.
On Topic -
Has Kimo ever cited his thoughts on why grappling went by the wayside yet, or did I miss them?
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:31 PM
Yes, very valid reasons.
When the UFC is reduced to some rediculous form of professional wrestling, then weight classes are absolutely necessary.
Damn near any type of technique that could be an equalizer to straight wrestling/limited striking is against the rules. Therefore, what was originally an art-vs-art concept is now just a sport which is focused much more on athleticism. It's been reduced to just another money-making sport.
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:36 PM
Jim Judy
And that has nothing to do with weight classes, "Spud" Webb, or the use of weight classes by Boxing, Wrestling etc.
There are weight classes for good and valid reasons--namely that unless your really skilled, size and weight count big in fighting---grappling in particular.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 06:55 PM
Did you watch any of the early UFCs? Strikers were taking guys out left & right until BJJ caught on, the rules got amped up to remove anything that the grapplers would consider "dirty fighting" so then everyone had to learn that silly ringfighting BJJ so that they could compete. Next we see overly strong guys with rudimentary grappling, such as we saw in UFC3 with Kimo & Royce Gracie, that BJJ can't handle. So, we end up with a bunch of yoked guys fighting while trying to catch up to the Gracies and their groundfighting monopoly.
I can't believe that people still think that this MMA sport can be used to accurately gauge the validity of real martial arts.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 07:10 PM
Quote:
Did you watch any of the early UFCs? Strikers were taking guys out left & right until BJJ caught on,
Taking out other strikers, you mean? Shamrock, Severn, and Gracie practically mauled all of their (pure striker) competition.
Quote:
the rules got amped up to remove anything that the grapplers would consider "dirty fighting" so then everyone had to learn that silly ringfighting BJJ so that they could compete.
As I have noted before, the early UFC's were actually a good accurate gauge of "dirty fighting" effectiveness. Only a few techniques were disallowed in the first few UFC's.
Quote:
Next we see overly strong guys with rudimentary grappling, such as we saw in UFC3 with Kimo & Royce Gracie, that BJJ can't handle.
Not sure of your point there, Jim. Kimo lost by submission! How is that "not handling"? And, as you pointed out, Kimo was MUCH bigger and stronger (and a better striker) than Royce - by FAR. But he still lost.
Royce also beat a much bigger/better striker Ken Shamrock - convincingly - until Ken started taking BJJ lessons.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 07:23 PM
Quote:
Did you watch any of the early UFCs? Strikers were taking guys out left & right until BJJ caught on, the
Uh…BJJ “caught on” at UFC 1. At that point, only one practitioner was there (Royce) and he wasn’t even considered great by most standards.
Quote:
rules got amped up to remove anything that the grapplers would consider "dirty fighting" so then everyone had to learn that silly ringfighting BJJ so that they could compete.
The rules were the same for EVERYONE, grappler or striker alike, so how would rules changes affect anything execept to make things easier for the strikers (stand-ups, etc)?
Quote:
Next we see overly strong guys with rudimentary grappling, such as we saw in UFC3 with Kimo & Royce Gracie, that BJJ can't handle.
That “BJJ can’t handle?” First of all, make sure your facts are right. Royce BEAT Kimo. Secondly, BJJ doesn’t fight anyone - people do. That's pretty basic but important to understand.
Quote:
So, we end up with a bunch of yoked guys fighting while trying to catch up to the Gracies and their groundfighting monopoly.
Pretty astounding isn’t it? I mean considering that some skinny, unauthentic kid beat a bunch of much bigger strikers. That’s a fairly strong testament.
Quote:
I can't believe that people still think that this MMA sport can be used to accurately gauge the validity of real martial arts.
What it does is gauge the validity of one’s ability to perform. That’s all. Again, what OTHER evenly matched scenario might do this better?
Just a question. Don’t get all irregular because someone asked lol
-John
Posted by: jude33
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 07:54 PM
Quote:
Loren Christensen has repeatedly stated the benefits of striking arts over grappling or ground fighting. As a career LEO with many more real life fights than any of us under his belt, I'd say he has an expert opinion worth listening to. Here is an article about Knife Attacks & the possibilities of facing a knife WHEN NOT IN THE RING...
Knife Attacks & Reality Article
Donn Draeger noted in his book "The Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia" that some of the Malay/Indonesian peoples do practice grappling arts, or integrated some Judo or Jujutsu into their arts, they didn't practice groundfighting even if grappling for sport, and the more combative tribes would only practice grappling for sport or exercise but would never use it in actual combat. These peoples are, along with Filipinos, the most prolific wearers & users of blades in the world. Knives and multiple attackers are part & parcel to their systems, & they choose to not grapple for a reason. Read the book!
Here are two articles about ground fighting and blades from Joe Maffei, a guy that knows something about it, and how it greatly differs from any unarmed ground fighting. According to him, the average NHB fighter is totally unprepared, regardless of what they may think...
Groundfighting & Knives #1
Groundfighting & Knives #2
How can grappling not be used in combat? So in combat they all abide by rules?
Here is a reality check about knife defences.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doci...h&plindex=0
There were specific police forces who did the same kind of tests. Same results.
The drums in this are good.
Paul plays a mean set of drums. I dont know the guy but he talks sense.
So seeing this video then establishing a defence after the first thrust seems logical. Whats your answer to a guy who asks what do I do after the first thrust has gone in?
You laugh?
Jude
Posted by: Leo_E_49
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 08:00 PM
From what I hear, it's only in recent years that striking has been making a comeback in MMA...
I didn't know pure strikers who adamantly defend the concept of one-track MA training still existed. I guess the UFC hasn't taught everyone the lesson that it was expected to.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 08:02 PM
Quote:
From what I hear, it's only in recent years that striking has been making a comeback in MMA...
Absolutely. There are two primary reasons why. 1) EVERYONE understands how to grapple now (because it's mandatory) and 2) Rules changes were created to even things up in order to provide a greater edge for the strikers (done to generate more excitement for a primarily non-grappling fan base).
-John
Posted by: cxt
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/25/07 10:28 PM
Jim Judy
Ah, Jim, I'm talking about WEIGHT CLASSES, not "strikers" etc.
If you go back and read my posts---I know that actually reading the things people write rather than just responding to stuff that isn't there might be a reach for you--you will find that I pretty neatly established that weight classes exsist in all sorts of areas-and for very good reasons.
If you prefer, then weight classes in Judo, Boxing, Olympic Wrestleing, etc.
As mentioned, there are very few "Spud" Webbs---and very few Gracies for that matter.
Tell you what---if your just wanting to use this thread as you own personal "blog" where you just say whatever you want and make whatever comments you want--regardless of what people are actually saying--just say so and I won't waste my time trying to explain things to you.
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/26/07 02:17 AM
Quote:
Quote:
From what I hear, it's only in recent years that striking has been making a comeback in MMA...
Absolutely. There are two primary reasons why. 1) EVERYONE understands how to grapple now (because it's mandatory) and 2) Rules changes were created to even things up in order to provide a greater edge for the strikers (done to generate more excitement for a primarily non-grappling fan base).
-John
Yeah, thank God!
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/26/07 07:00 AM
Jim Judy -
I'm not playing with you.
You were warned. Change your method, manner and show some respect bro.
Quote:
Yeah, thank God!
Yes, thank God that strikers were given a chance. Yes. They SHOULD be thankful. I agree.
-John
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/26/07 02:11 PM
In all fairness the Gracies and Brazilians had fought that way for 50-40 years. Knowing what and how an opponent will fight means alot. You know what they are capable of doing having trained against it in the dojo in contact matches before.
Not taking anything from skinning Royce (leg muscles of steel) beating Giants like Kimo (had Judo some background) along with his striking, Grapplers Seversen and Pancrase's Shamrock. What about the big Dutch JJ guy he beat him pretty handedly, outweighed by at least 60lbs? But at the time BJJ was superior because Royce had trained more realistic and against better quailty opponent his older brothers, cousins and Uncles were awesome. Thats what made it looks so smooth as if he's done it or had it done to him numerous times, because he had.
Whatever made grappling fall to the way side, its back now on the fore burner, and have people thinking about using it as the favorite against a close in weapon like a knife. Filipinos and Inodoasains arts use weapon intensively there are some ground defense but predominately they defend standing and mobile. What does this mean? Only that I've only seen a limit amount of skilled people defend against a knife on the ground as the place to be. Now if you are there its best to have trained it, tying in Royce experince with his muscluar opponents.
Theres no doubt you need both skills to be well rounded.
Note that after Seversen and Kimo fight he had to be packed off. Still I can't take anything away from his skill and tenacity, heritage means something when it comes to willing yourself to do it for more then just you.
To others that just started training in ground work, know your strength don't go to the ground because its done in the UFC/MMA. If you do a takedown and the guy a better grappler and has a hold of you escape after realizing hes better is unlikely. You probably going get the crap beat out out of you. Standing you always got a strikers chance, slim as it might be pending your or the oponents skill level.
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/26/07 08:01 PM
Quote:
Not taking anything from skinning Royce (leg muscles of steel) beating Giants like Kimo
I hate the irony of a grappler beating a Kimo
But that said, I do have a big post to make on this thread, I am tied up with work, but soon when I have time I will respond to the question asked why I think ground fighting fell to the wayside.
Been a good thread though and I have been reading along, lots of good comments, lots of silly internet BS too.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/26/07 10:23 PM
Quote:
I hate the irony of a grappler beating a Kimo
LMAO
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/27/07 06:14 PM
So why do I think ground fighting fell by the wayside?
I think there are many possible reasons but my hunch is this.
Martial Arts is like magic. Magic is no longer magical once you understand the trick. Martial Arts is much the same way, "Karate is my secret" it works so well because the other guy doesn't know what is coming or how to combat it.
In a time where everyone learned wrestling but few learned striking, the striker was magical.
In the UFC it was the same thing, Grapplers won because they had "secret" fighting tools the strikers did not.
So you can see how things might evolve.
Today a lot of the secret aspects are gone, so many people know MA it's like we can all see behind the curtain, so MA has gone from being like magic to being like sports.
Truth be told though, good MA is still magic to the average guy walking down the street, maybe today because of the information age you need to be better then you had to be in the past, but the stuff still works.
Martial Arts is about knowing something the other guy, or guys do not, thats why it works so well and so fast.
Martial Arts is not about 2 evenly matched and trained fighters in combat, thats sports.
So ground fighting went to the wayside because it was largely uneeded and dangerous, some grappling remained because it had more value for the situations people of the time faced.
Then it was passed down in that form, even if that form no longer met the challenges of new generations.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/27/07 07:14 PM
So ground fighting went by the wayside even though it never went by the wayside.
Is that a fair statement?
-John
Posted by: Kimo2007
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/27/07 09:56 PM
Quote:
So ground fighting went by the wayside even though it never went by the wayside.
Is that a fair statement?
Oh you do love the double talk John.
Ground fighting as an art never went away, the arts moved away and then reconverged.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/27/07 10:14 PM
Kimo -
As cxt and others have noted, within the karate tradition at least, it is fair to say that groundfighting was never taught in an integrated fashion. This begs the question of it "falling by the wayside", since they were never really together in the first place.
Does anyone have any evidence that groundfighting and striking were taught together in a widespread manner anywhere in the 20th century? Seems to me that it was fairly rare, but a historian I'm not.
Posted by: Victor Smith
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/28/07 04:28 AM
Matt,
"Does anyone have any evidence that groundfighting and striking were taught together in a widespread manner anywhere in the 20th century? Seems to me that it was fairly rare, but a historian I'm not."
I don't think so in the karate tradition. Other traditions such as many of the Northern Chinese systems, or the Indonesian silat systems have always integrated ground and striking traditions.
Posted by: BaguaMonk
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/28/07 05:36 PM
If you look at old Judo and Jujitsu, it most certainly existed. But mostly as a way to finish fight quickly, not a sport. So if you got someone to the ground, and were in a superior position, one strike choke, break etc. should of ended fight right away. No one expected for ground game to turn into a back-and-forth competitive aspect like it is now.
Also throws were intergrated into ground game. But when Judo (and Shuai Jou) became more sport, competitive oriented...then the emphasis on ground fighting became lost. There are still alot of old Indian martial arts that "wrestle" on the ground.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/28/07 05:49 PM
Quote:
If you look at old Judo and Jujitsu, it most certainly existed. But mostly as a way to finish fight quickly, not a sport. So if you got someone to the ground, and were in a superior position, one strike choke, break etc. should of ended fight right away.
Good points you bring up.
I don't know that the fight CAN'T be finished right away.
And:
Quote:
No one expected for ground game to turn into a back-and-forth competitive aspect like it is now.
It's back and forth merely because everything is equal in terms of skill, conditioning and other factors.
That would happen in ANY range where again, everything else was equal.
-John
Posted by: wristtwister
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/28/07 10:26 PM
Hate to break protocol, but without reading the previous 14 pages of discussion, I would like to say that ground fighting is more popular now than it has been in the past umpteen dozen years, and has always been a "cook's choice" area of self-defense. Stand up arts usually taught just enough to be dangerous. Judo was the exception, and that was because it was a "scoring endeavor".
As for the "fighting" aspect of ground work, the techniques work fine if you want to break the guy's arm, choke him out, and the like, and it's quick if you're any good. A few seconds of a good hadaka jime and it's "night night", so getting on the ground and choking have always been viable... it's just easier to stand up and fight... box... kick... whatever, and you don't end up rolling around on rocks and broken glass.
If you take a guy to the ground, and apply one of the disabling or "knockout" tactics quickly, it's certainly just as effective as a standing knockout... it's just a different kind of practice and skill.
All my years of Judo and jujutsu have involved plenty of groundwork, but now that my hips are questionable at any given time, I prefer the "stand up" methods I know. Proficiency also has a part in it, and since I don't do as much ground work as I once did, I would probably be better off using "stand up".
While I didn't comment for a long time, I watched this thread for a while with one comment in my mind... "I'm not so sure that ground fighting EVER fell by the wayside". I've had all I wanted of it for the better part of 45 years, and it was always fun and interesting (and painful).
I think that it never was meant to be "wrestling", however, if it was taught in the "martial arts" that involved soldiery. Those were usually "terminal arts", and the intent wasn't to choke your guy out for points... it was to keep from being "shisk-a-bobbed" by a sword. There's nothing better than something like that to make you take it seriously...
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/30/07 10:36 PM
Wow!! I figured with such a touchy subject that no matter how reasonably I spoke someone would get their undies in a bundle...didn't expect so much misunderstanding over a simple post though. Why do people fly off the handle and start making assumptions every time someone says anything other than "Ground fighting totally rocks."?JKogas (may I call you John?), you sure gave me a lot to respond to! I get the feeling that you're taking me as the typical TMA pansy with the typical anti-MMA bias. You clearly assumed all kinds of stuff I didn't say and don't believe. Let's see if we can clear that up.
Quote:
HaterHater wrote
Quote:
I've only seen one fight (IRL) go to the ground and that was because both people were so unskilled they simply fell over each other.
But what does that prove? Only that it happens. Isn't that reason enough to train the ground game?
No, not for that reason. (BTW, are you implying that I'm so inept at fighting that I'm just going to trip over an unskilled oaf? I don't claim to be a great fighter, but I'm not a total clod, eh. ) I believe one should train for the ground game in case one encounters someone skilled at it. (Oh yeah, I have to admit I remembered a 2nd fight that went to the ground.)
Quote:
Quote:
Now for all you who enjoy the ground-game, don't get offended. I'm not saying it's weak or pointless. I'm just saying it all depends on what you're training for. If you're training for self-defence, then the ground game just isn't as important
I think your premise is flawed. If the ground game isn't important, then training for self-defense isn't important either. Using the same logic.
First off, nice job mis-quoting me. I said "not as important"....never said it isn't important. Also, you apparently didn't follow my logic (I know I sure didn't follow yours in that last paragraph). I have had to defend myself...people I know have had to defend themselves. Thus, training for self defense makes sense. However, neither myself nor anyone I know has had to defend against skillful groundfighting (at least outside of training/the ring)...thus, while it is important, it's not as important for self defense. The equation is Less Common=Less Important.
Quote:
Quote:
...grappling skills in general, however, are very useful.
Ok, so now you're slicing and dicing. Explain the differences between "grappling skills in general" and ground fighting. To me they are one and the same.
Fair enough. The ground game is one aspect of grappling...standing is the other. You may call it slicing and dicing, but from personal experience there's a big difference. I was going to use the example of the first time I sparred with a Judo guy. But here's a better one. We're hopping in the way-back machine and visiting the first time I encountered any sort of ground game....highschool...in P.E. class during the wrestling unit. I had to go against one of the guys on the wrestling team. Based on good footwork, rooting and sensitivity from what training I had back then, he couldn't throw me or take me down, but I could throw him. There's your stand-up grappling. Once we were re-started on the ground, he basically had his way with me. There's your ground-game. (That's also me me admitting that while I had decent stand-up skill, I right away realized those skills didn't transfer to the ground.)
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know, haven't met nor even heard of anyone being attacked and clobbered by a trained ground-fighter. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen to anyone, just that it's not a common thing to have to worry about.
Thats what makes people such an easy mark. It's hard to beat what you don't know and haven't seen. I bet all of the TMA guys in the first couple of UFCs felt exactly the same way.
You seem to agree with me there. If you want to fight competitively, skills on the ground are a must. And, yes, to be fully rounded in self-defense, one needs ground skills. But I still haven't heard of anyone being taken down and owned on the ground outside of training or the ring. So, (just to be difficult for the way you laid into me) when this has happened to 1/2 as many people I know as those who've simply had to deal with the stand-up game, then I'll consider it 1/2 as important. Hope that's clear enough logic there.
Quote:
For those of you who advocate using ground-fighting for self-defence...cool. We all have our preferences and if it works, it works. But, it's not the only way.
I think its more a question of having a complete game instead of going out at about 50% of capacity. Who in their right mind advocates being "half-assed"?
Nice implication. I'll address the "half-assed" comment in the next post when I address the drawing of lines.
Josh
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/30/07 10:41 PM
Quote:
Quote:
.....Why did ground-fighting fall to the way-side?....I'm guessing 2 main reasons. First, for quite some time less people have been training for real fighting/self-defence skills, and more for fun and health.
So how does THAT argument explain anything? What are you trying to say, that grapplers don't train for self-defense? Are you also saying that training for fun and health have no bearing on self-defense? Explain your premise.
Wowzers!! Where the heck do you get the "grapplers don't train for self-defense" bit? I'm not referring to grapplers at all here! I'm talking about the so-called TMAs that do forms/katas and maybe some pre-arranged stuff but never spar...or the ones who spar only lightly and never really add resistance or work against people outside their school/style. That's what I mean by "for health and fun". Since that's all these folks were interested in, there was need for them to deal with the ground game. Is that ok with you?
Quote:
Quote:
Second, those who have been training for self-defence were focused on that...since you didn't have a lot of highly skilled ground-fighters roaming the streets and kicking @ss, people interested in self-defence didn't worry about it too much. Only makes sense.
That people were IGNORANT to ground fighting doesn't mean that not training for it makes any sense.
The first thing here is that the question was "why has ground fighting fallen to the wayside"....that's what I'm addressing...why. I'm not saying it's a good thing! But the fact of the matter is, that until the advent of the UFC, skilled ground fighting wasn't a common thing to encounter (yes, it existed, it just wasn't wide-spread). That being said, as far as actual smart training goes, I actually agree with you.
Oops, gotta bust out for a few...but I'll do one more post when I get back 'cause there're a few more of your points worth touching on (and I don't want to ignore any of your questions).
Later,
Josh
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/30/07 11:20 PM
HaterHater wroteQuote:
Wow!! I figured with such a touchy subject that no matter how reasonably I spoke someone would get their undies in a bundle...didn't expect so much misunderstanding over a simple post though.
Whose undies are in a bundle? I didn't think that mine were. I was just having a conversation. Do you say that everyone who disagrees with some of your points has their "undies in a bundle"?
Maybe if you would like less misunderstanding, it would help if you explain more clearly what it is you're trying to say? Don't know.
Quote:
Why do people fly off the handle and start making assumptions every time someone says anything other than "Ground fighting totally rocks."?JKogas (may I call you John?), you sure gave me a lot to respond to!
Please call me John.
And welcome to Fightingarts.com! We love to converse here. It's a....discussion forum and....we discuss things (hopefully martial arts) but, thats part of the fun of it. What's any GOOD conversation about, bull$hitting each other or hacking away to find some grain of truth? Either choice sometimes takes a while to accomplish.
Quote:
I get the feeling that you're taking me as the typical TMA pansy with the typical anti-MMA bias. You clearly assumed all kinds of stuff I didn't say and don't believe. Let's see if we can clear that up.
No, honestly I don't know much about you. Thats why I am having a dialog with you...so that I CAN see your point better. Ultimately, this is "just an internet forum". As odd as it may appear, I really don't take it all that seriously.
Quote:
....are you implying that I'm so inept at fighting that I'm just going to trip over an unskilled oaf? I don't claim to be a great fighter, but I'm not a total clod, eh. ) I believe one should train for the ground game in case one encounters someone skilled at it. (Oh yeah, I have to admit I remembered a 2nd fight that went to the ground.)
Not implying a thing. I don't know you from Adam so any sense that I'm trying to imply that "you" are anything is not coming from me. I'm just typing bro.
Quote:
First off, nice job mis-quoting me. I said "not as important"....never said it isn't important.
Nice job of splitting hairs
Quote:
Also, you apparently didn't follow my logic (I know I sure didn't follow yours in that last paragraph). I have had to defend myself...people I know have had to defend themselves. Thus, training for self defense makes sense. However, neither myself nor anyone I know has had to defend against skillful groundfighting (at least outside of training/the ring)...thus, while it is important, it's not as important for self defense. The equation is Less Common=Less Important.
Fair enough. I tend to disagree but that's me. That's why I wrote what I did. If you didn't get the gist of what I was saying, that's ok too.
For the record, the best training for self-defense IMO is the worst-case scenario. That of course is the ground. Again that's just me.
Quote:
Fair enough. The ground game is one aspect of grappling...standing is the other. You may call it slicing and dicing, but from personal experience there's a big difference.
No I understand. Standing grappling and ground grappling. That's cool. I see your point.
Quote:
... But I still haven't heard of anyone being taken down and owned on the ground outside of training or the ring.
That's where we differ. I saw it all the TIME. I've seen so many fights it's ridiculous. Practically every one I've seen ended up on the ground if they weren't immediately broken up. I've seen them in parking lots of bars where I grew up. I would hit the bar scene back in 1980-81 (was underage) and saw so many fights over the next twenty plus years, I can't TELL you. There are way less now than there used to be however (that would require a study of sociology to figure out why). I never saw a one punch knock out.
But again, thats just me. Just telling you what I've seen (and experienced personally...my first fight ended up on the ground)
Quote:
So, (just to be difficult for the way you laid into me) when this has happened to 1/2 as many people I know as those who've simply had to deal with the stand-up game, then I'll consider it 1/2 as important. Hope that's clear enough logic there.
So you've seen a lot of people who were boxers stand toe to toe, duke it out while never grabbing the other guy and trying to wrestle him down. No one EVER tried to close the distance? No one EVER tried to grab and hold?
Where do you live?
Quote:
Nice implication. I'll address the "half-assed" comment in the next post when I address the drawing of lines.
No implication there unless it's coming from your own conscience.
Quote:
Wowzers!! Where the heck do you get the "grapplers don't train for self-defense" bit?
I was merely asking if that's what you were saying. You see, if you re-read, you'll find a question mark. I was asking because I wanted to clarify what you were trying to say. So you see, I wasn't implying that you were saying that. I was asking to further clarify your point of view. Read carefully bro.
Quote:
I'm not referring to grapplers at all here! I'm talking about the so-called TMAs that do forms/katas and maybe some pre-arranged stuff but never spar...or the ones who spar only lightly and never really add resistance or work against people outside their school/style. That's what I mean by "for health and fun". Since that's all these folks were interested in, there was need for them to deal with the ground game. Is that ok with you?
Absolutely ok with me But again, we talk here on this forum. That's kind of what it's for. Sometimes in effort to understand each other we have to ask questions. Don't be so sensitive and "read" things into what I'm saying that aren't really there.
Quote:
The first thing here is that the question was "why has ground fighting fallen to the wayside"....that's what I'm addressing...why. I'm not saying it's a good thing! But the fact of the matter is, that until the advent of the UFC, skilled ground fighting wasn't a common thing to encounter (yes, it existed, it just wasn't wide-spread). That being said, as far as actual smart training goes, I actually agree with you.
Gotcha. I'm going to admit something man....depending on the day of the week, I'm slow sometimes Bear with the old man here as he navigates carefully through people's posts to make double sure he understands what is being said. I actually scored very high on reading comprehension...but thats neither here nor there. I just enjoy conversing primarily. I mean no disrespect.
Quote:
Oops, gotta bust out for a few...but I'll do one more post when I get back 'cause there're a few more of your points worth touching on (and I don't want to ignore any of your questions).
Looking forward to it.
-John
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/30/07 11:44 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I think it all depends on what you're trying to measure.
Performance. The ability to perform against one's peers. That is truly all we can reasonably measure ourselves against.
I dunno. I think I could measure my performance against an 80 year old grannie. (or grandpa! )
Quote:
Quote:
If we're talking real life self-defense skills, then I'd have to say a better measuring stick is real life.
Define "real life" please. How is MMA any less real? Explain your premise.
It's not that MMA is less real....it's just not the same as self defense. That's the difference I was pointing out. Now, slow down and don't fly off the handle at that statement. It's true. And in no way does that imply that MMA training is inferior or inapplicable to self defense. On the contrary. MMA competition is well trained athletes with plenty of fighting experience against other well trained athletes. That takes far more skill than most people care about for self defense. I thought I made that clear enough when I said "If I can keep myself and my loved ones safe, then I've got the skills I need. Doesn't matter that a UFC level fighter could tear me apart."
Quote:
Using your line of reasoning, it's possible for things to happen - but it won't happen on the ground.
Wrong-o there, buddy. That's not my line of reasoning. Wait a minute....I never said anything like that! My line of reasoning is that it's less likely to happen on the ground if you have good stand-up skills (again, I'm not talking competitive fighting against well trained individuals). So, for self-defense it makes sense to start with stand-up skills and then move to ground skills. My reasoning tells me that to be well rounded one needs to prepare for all ranges on both the X and Y axes. I don't advise "putting ones head in the sand", as you put it.
Quote:
Unless of course you believe that every situation you encounter will be under your control. I don't know of any reasonably intelligent person who believes that.
Nor do I.
Quote:
I suppose some folks are just happy drawing lines and being biased because it means less work for them.
Again, I'd agree with you...to an extent. Some folks don't want to work hard and some folks are afraid of the unfamiliar. However, there's another option. Before I get into it, I'd better preface it with a disclaimer to make sure you don't think I'm advocating "half-assedness". I personally believe in preparing for all ranges and both axes. However, I can understand why some people don't bother. Why? Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. Simple as that. I personally don't train knife defense. Maybe someday I'll decide to, but I doubt it. I can shoot a gun fairly well, but I don't train it, nor carry one. Nor do I carry a tazer or mace or anything like that. I don't train in improvising weapons...need I go on? I'm just not willing to put the time, effort or money into those things. (No doubt you also draw the line somewhere as far as self defense goes.) So I can understand why some people feel that way about the X axis, even if I don't agree with it. As long as people aren't lying to themselves about what they do and what they're prepared for, then it's all good by me.
Anyway, hope that clears it all up. Reading your response, I don't think you said anything I disagreed with (except those things you erroneously thought I believed). In fact, the only thing I think you might disagree with me about is whether or not ground fighting is as important as stand up for self defense. So please, if there's anything there you disagree with, do address it (I don't know how much off topic banter the mods here tolerate, so if you feel the need to start a new thread, just point me there). And if you happen to mention "ah, we agree about this or that" then all the better. Now to see if I have time to read the rest of this thread.
Best,
Josh
Posted by: HaterHater
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 06/30/07 11:46 PM
Quote:
Oh my. Oh dear. Josh, with all due respect, statements like this reflect an ignorance about "real life" fighting that borders on astonishing.
MattJ....Weak, man. While JKogas may have misquoted me and decided I meant things other than what I wrote, he at least stated some clear views and opened a dialogue. Yours was exactly the sort of reactionary post that discouraged me from posting on this forum for so long. Saying "With all due respect" doesn't make you respectful when you follow it up with smug condescension. If you have any issues with what I wrote that haven't been covered in my response to JKogas, please feel free to phrase them in a civilized manner and I'll get back to you. Until then, all I can do is to quote the wise words of an animated Rastafarian accountant and say, "Take a rage dump, Mon!"
Later,
(H)Hater
Posted by: Saisho
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 10:12 AM
John and Hater, would you like some Tea and Crumpettes while you converse?
This has to be the most polite debate I have seen on this forum. It is kind of refreshing.
Posted by: JKogas
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 11:24 AM
with apologies for departing from topic....Quote:
I think I could measure my performance against an 80 year old grannie. (or grandpa! )
Thats my point. Perhaps you COULD measure your performance against the elderly, but what good would that do for you realistically?
I would want to measure my performance against other athletes. By doing so, I can better see where I stand against my peers. That was my point. If I can "hang with" other conditioned and skilled athletes, the geriatrics shouldn't thus be a problem, right? In theory...
Quote:
It's not that MMA is less real....it's just not the same as self defense. That's the difference I was pointing out. Now, slow down and don't fly off the handle at that statement. It's true. And in no way does that imply that MMA training is inferior or inapplicable to self defense. On the contrary. MMA competition is well trained athletes with plenty of fighting experience against other well trained athletes. That takes far more skill than most people care about for self defense. I thought I made that clear enough when I said "If I can keep myself and my loved ones safe, then I've got the skills I need. Doesn't matter that a UFC level fighter could tear me apart."
First, I understand what you're saying. Trust me. But that wasn't my point.
My point was, how do you measure your own abilities? Certainly you test yourself correct? Or do you never do so and simply rest on blind faith?
MMA (regardless of venue or whether it's even done as sparring within your own gyms against your partners) enables us to more effectively gauge where you're at. This doesn't mean that a person has to fight professionally or even compete at all. It just means that you train alive, against resisting opponents and throughout all ranges. It also means that you should experience this outside of your own schools and gyms on occasion so that we are forced to step outside of our comfort zones (that's the beauty of competition).
Quote:
Wrong-o there, buddy. That's not my line of reasoning. Wait a minute....I never said anything like that! My line of reasoning is that it's less likely to happen on the ground if you have good stand-up skills (again, I'm not talking competitive fighting against well trained individuals). So, for self-defense it makes sense to start with stand-up skills and then move to ground skills.
Fair enough. I can understand starting with stand-up skills but I actually go the other way on this. 1) You wouldn't build a house from the roof down. You'd build it from the foundation (ground) up. 2) If people can stand and trade, they can also run. Thus in theory, striking skills aren't as important as are the skills needed when you CAN'T run (clinch and ground). But again, thats just my own point of view.
And again, one's "stand-up" ability is only as good as one's ability to remain standing. Sure that's common sense but it's worth stating at the same time.
Quote:
My reasoning tells me that to be well rounded one needs to prepare for all ranges on both the X and Y axes. I don't advise "putting ones head in the sand", as you put it.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Before I get into it, I'd better preface it with a disclaimer to make sure you don't think I'm advocating "half-assedness". I personally believe in preparing for all ranges and both axes. However, I can understand why some people don't bother. Why? Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. Simple as that.
If that's because of lack of resources and time, I can understand. I have no problem with people choosing one or the other (standing/ground). Perhaps people don't understand that. I don't CARE what folks do with their time or training really. I'm just throwing out my point of view.
Some folks don't have as many options for training. They may not have access to schools that train in an MMA format. I certainly understand that a lack of resources force folks to make a choice and draw that line. Thats perfectly fine so long as they at least realize that they have a huge hole in their defenses.
Quote:
I personally don't train knife defense. Maybe someday I'll decide to, but I doubt it. I can shoot a gun fairly well, but I don't train it, nor carry one. Nor do I carry a tazer or mace or anything like that. I don't train in improvising weapons...need I go on? I'm just not willing to put the time, effort or money into those things. (No doubt you also draw the line somewhere as far as self defense goes.) So I can understand why some people feel that way about the X axis, even if I don't agree with it. As long as people aren't lying to themselves about what they do and what they're prepared for, then it's all good by me.
Those are great points and I agree. Here's my thing; I don't train martial arts for self-defense. Could I defend myself? I think so, but that isn't why I train. It used to be why I trained....years ago. But that HAS been years ago.
I think that martial arts are for better reasons than for self-defense and, if people (civilians) are requiring on them for self-defense, it's probably going to be too late from a timing stand-point. Going "hands on" in a fight means that you failed on many levels prior to having needed empty hand skills.
Real self-defense is about having the instinct for self-preservation, IMO. That means a LOT of other things than practicing empty hand or even weapons skill to some extent.
Thus, I don't train knife defense that often (I train clinch which - hopefully - would give me enough of what I'd need in a knife encounter). I don't train gun fighting either. Personally, I think its easier to be more intelligent and use my BRAIN as a weapon. If I needed a knife or a gun, there's a very good likelihood that I'll be too late on the draw (because my opponent might well have HIS drawn first, if you see my point).
Quote:
Anyway, hope that clears it all up. Reading your response, I don't think you said anything I disagreed with (except those things you erroneously thought I believed).
Well again, that's why we converse. I certainly am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. Thanks for working to clarify.
Quote:
In fact, the only thing I think you might disagree with me about is whether or not ground fighting is as important as stand up for self defense. So please, if there's anything there you disagree with, do address it (I don't know how much off topic banter the mods here tolerate, so if you feel the need to start a new thread, just point me there). And if you happen to mention "ah, we agree about this or that" then all the better. Now to see if I have time to read the rest of this thread.
Good deal Josh. No two people will ever agree on everything, and that's all good. I appreciate your taking the approach you did here. Now if everyone would follow suit, we'd have a remarkable forum.
-John
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 12:09 PM
Quote:
MattJ....Weak, man. While JKogas may have misquoted me and decided I meant things other than what I wrote, he at least stated some clear views and opened a dialogue.
Fair enough, Josh. I apologize for the tone of my post. As I have said before, "I don't mean to be an ass. It just works out that way."
I did make some valid points, intertwined with my abuse. Football players and wrestlers are common types of aggressors in the USA, and will very often try to ground the opponent. Even untrained attackers will try to do that, so whether they are "trained ground fighters" or not is really a moot point, because statistically speaking, you are very likely to end up there in a real altercation.
You can even check the "Consolidated Poll Thread" sticky to get an idea of the member's views and experiences here.
Quote:
I can do is to quote the wise words of an animated Rastafarian accountant and say, "Take a rage dump, Mon!"
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 04:46 PM
Wow, a moment of relative calm.
Hopefully, it's not simply the eye of the storm...
Posted by: oldman
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 08:13 PM
Quote:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows – Bob Dylan
Posted by: jude33
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/01/07 10:53 PM
Hi
I cant see your logic. All aspects of fighting need to be trained. If an attacker is better than the defender with their fists so the defender takes the attacker to the ground
then who ever is more skilled on the ground should in most cases win?
Thus ground fighting like any part of fight training has equal importance.
Jude
Posted by: Jim_Judy
Re: Why did ground fighting fall to the way side? - 07/02/07 12:59 AM
Quote:
Quote:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows – Bob Dylan
Hey! I like Bob Dylan! ( excellent Groundfighter...)