# Grappling is a Waste of time



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 14, 2009)

I am curious if anyone honestly believes this?
I usually hear stand up martial artists say this, and when asked if they have tried grappling of any kind, they always say NO NEVER. Whan asked if they have worked with any highly skilled grapplers of any kind to test their defenses, they respond with a NO, or someone with very limited skills, or someone from class simply playing at taking them down.
When asked if they want to test their abilities versus a takedown situation, its either a complete denial to even try with some statement of deadly skills and not wanting to hurt another person, or they accept and in my experience so far they are completely inadequate at defending themselves, and there is a huge wake up call, or more denial...
I have no interest in trying to argue with anyone about the merits of grappling, I really do not care if anyone elses version of their art is inadequate, but I am really curious though if anyone here has this attitude, and actually has some form of experience, or training that has in fact proven to themselves that grappling is indeed a waste of time?
Any comments?

I guess what I am looking for is anyone that has any form of valid information as to why a Martial Artist should not spend, or waste, time training grappling as opposed to stand up abilities alone?


----------



## Ironcrane (Apr 14, 2009)

The only thing I can think of is if the soul purpose of your training is to compete in stand up only competitions. Like Boxing, or Muay Thai.
Other then that, grappling is sometimes considered to not be an ideal place to be, due to limited space, or being on concrete, and what not. But even then you'll generally hear, and be taught that you'd be better off with the skill then without it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 14, 2009)

First of all, grapling is fun 
But for the usefulness: try doing a roundhouse kick in a crowded situation...
When it is up close and personal, kicking and striking are much more difficult.

Also, if you ever get taken to court, eye witnesses remember that you
a) viciously kicked / beat the snot out of someone
b) held someone / shoved him / pushed him.

Even though you can seriously injure people, it is generally less visible to the bystanders who might get interviewed, depending on what happened.


----------



## chav buster (Apr 14, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> First of all, grapling is fun
> But for the usefulness: try doing a roundhouse kick in a crowded situation...
> When it is up close and personal, kicking and striking are much more difficult.
> 
> ...


 this is the great thing about throwing arts like judo and wrestling. its far simpler to ko someone by throwing them on there head iwhen theres no matts then it is through strikes and to the layman it just looks like you where not trying to hurt him.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 14, 2009)

A true MA would involve all aspects of self defense. Most people in a fight want to get you to the ground. I feel the ones that dont think that may end up there, are in for a rude awakening.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 14, 2009)

Ground work is a part of all MA and should be. Remember a true MAist learns all aspect of self defense.


----------



## searcher (Apr 14, 2009)

Its useless, until you get to the ground.   Then it is not so much of a waste.   Even if you don't want to train on the ground, you had better be able to defend against it.   We have seen that if you have a great takedown defense, it will help you most of the time.    But there will always be that once or twice or ?? that you end up there.   Don't want to be a fish out of water, do you?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 14, 2009)

Of course grappling is a waste of time when I can just use my Yellow Bamboo Mystic Powerz to make you fall down from 10 feet away!  



Ok, for real, I think that grappling, even if its mostly "Stand Up" grappling is important to work on, even if its not your focus.  Knowlage of it, how it works, and some counters are probably quite important, given todays fighting climate.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2009)

seasoned said:


> A true MA would involve all aspects of self defense. Most people in a fight want to get you to the ground. I feel the ones that dont think that may end up there, are in for a rude awakening.


I disagree with this.  I would say that effective self defense arts involve all aspects of self defense.  A true martial art, in my mind, is simply an art that teaches some actual martial skill, whether self defense related or not.  Kyudo, for example, is a martial art in my opinion, because it teaches an actual martial skill.  The self defense applications are, however, dubious.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

There is no logical argument to support the statement "Grappling is a Waste of Time". 

Grappling is involved in the closer ranges of combat, if you neglect it then you take the risk of being a victim of it. 

'nuff said.


----------



## Domino (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> if you neglect it then you take the risk of being a victim of it.


Totally agree
Personally would love to get some BJJ experience.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 14, 2009)

Interesting.
I posted this on several martial arts forums and only one board actually had people who posted saying they actually thought along those lines. Unfortunately none gave any reasons that made any amount of sense. All of them are well into their advanced years as well. The phraseold dog and new tricks immediately came to mind. Personally I love Grappling, I consider myself a stand up artist, but have been training in BJJ for several years now, I hear the arguments against grappling in person alot, it never ceases to make me shake my head.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am curious if anyone honestly believes this?
> I usually hear stand up martial artists say this, and when asked if they have tried grappling of any kind, they always say NO NEVER. Whan asked if they have worked with any highly skilled grapplers of any kind to test their defenses, they respond with a NO, or someone with very limited skills, or someone from class simply playing at taking them down.
> When asked if they want to test their abilities versus a takedown situation, its either a complete denial to even try with some statement of deadly skills and not wanting to hurt another person, or they accept and in my experience so far they are completely inadequate at defending themselves, and there is a huge wake up call, or more denial...
> I have no interest in trying to argue with anyone about the merits of grappling, I really do not care if anyone elses version of their art is inadequate, but I am really curious though if anyone here has this attitude, and actually has some form of experience, or training that has in fact proven to themselves that grappling is indeed a waste of time?
> ...


 
Why do people think its a waste of time?  Because they usually have blinders on, and think that what they're already doing is the best and there's no need to look outside the box.  This can be applied to grapplers as well in regards to learning standup.  

They think that the grappling that they find in their kata and techs. is all they'll need, and IMO, that isn't enough.  If you're not testing it against someone who really knows how to grapple, again, IMO, you're limiting yourself.  

I don't think that its necessary to abandon your standup art and take up BJJ, Judo, Sambo, etc., but its good to work with them and see how they function.  If you can make your standup defense against a takedown work against them, great, then you know it'll work against anyone.  But if you can't you better go back to the drawing board.

Now, some will say that you won't be fighting a Royce Gracie in the real world, and you probably won't.  However, MMA is popular and wrestling is still taught in many highschools and colleges, so yes, while they may not be pro level, the odds could be pretty good that you could face someone with a grappling background.

There is so much out there to learn, IMO, you're only making yourself better by making sure that your stuff works under pressure.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

Ironcrane said:


> The only thing I can think of is if the soul purpose of your training is to compete in stand up only competitions. Like Boxing, or Muay Thai.
> Other then that, grappling is sometimes considered to not be an ideal place to be, due to limited space, or being on concrete, and what not. But even then you'll generally hear, and be taught that you'd be better off with the skill then without it.


 
Good points!  Of course, grappling will provide the standup person with the necessary skills to escape the bad position and safely get back to your feet.  

Don't mistake this as me advocating going to the ground.  I want to remain standing, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I will never stumble, trip, or get knocked down and need the skills to save my tail.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

searcher said:


> Its useless, until you get to the ground.


 
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that.  I mean, there are things that can be done standing as well.  Additionally, there are a number of things that can be done from clinching range.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that. I mean, there are things that can be done standing as well. Additionally, there are a number of things that can be done from clinching range.


 
EXACTLY! 

Unfortunately, many view "grappling" as rolling around on the ground and that's not the case. 

"Grappling" is no more a waste of time than "Striking." They are simply individual components of combat, of which there are more. 

For some reason, that point is lost on many (grapplers and strikers alike.)


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 14, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Ground work is a part of all MA and should be. Remember a true MAist learns all aspect of self defense.


 
Yes! 100% agreement. I personally have never heard that "grappling is pointless" or is used only by people with limited skill (like battle harded samurai?).

Such an arguement is ignorant and comical. Striking, grappling, weapons, and tactics are all important aspects of martial arts and a well rounded warrior should have access to all these skills.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 14, 2009)

Should I start a new thread to discuss the fact that grappling does not mean ground work.  Ground work is part of grappling but grappling is not just ground work.  Judo, all types of jiu-jitsu, hapkido, all types of wrestling, chi na, shuai chiao, and many other styles are all grappling.  

Some of you will say 'uhh...no ****', but there are a lot of people that think BJJ style ground work is what 'grappling' means.  Clarification is needed.  And yes, grappling should be a part of all styles to some degree or another, and yes some awareness specifically of ground work should also be included.  

On the other hand, BJJ style fighters could use some education in stand up grappling, and probably throws.  These seem to be sorely lacking in their repetoire.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> EXACTLY!
> 
> Unfortunately, many view "grappling" as rolling around on the ground and that's not the case.
> 
> ...


 


blindsage said:


> Should I start a new thread to discuss the fact that grappling does not mean ground work. Ground work is part of grappling but grappling is not just ground work. Judo, all types of jiu-jitsu, hapkido, all types of wrestling, chi na, shuai chiao, and many other styles are all grappling.
> 
> Some of you will say 'uhh...no ****', but there are a lot of people that think BJJ style ground work is what 'grappling' means. Clarification is needed. And yes, grappling should be a part of all styles to some degree or another, and yes some awareness specifically of ground work should also be included.
> 
> On the other hand, BJJ style fighters could use some education in stand up grappling, and probably throws. These seem to be sorely lacking in their repetoire.


 
These 2 posts, in conjunction with what I said, are so very true!  Its kinda like that test where you're shown a pic. and you have to say the first thing that comes to your mind.  Same thing here.  It makes me laugh when people hear BJJ or grappling and assume it means locking up with someone in a 30 min epic ground fighting battle.  Not the case at all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 14, 2009)

seasoned said:


> A true MA would involve all aspects of self defense.


Absolutely. I find it very strange when people in either a straight grappling art or a straight stand up art say that the other is useless or unnecessary. I have spent a long time in taekwondo, which as you know is a stand up and striking art. It has been an effective art for me in practical SD situations. The first chance I had to learn hapkido, I jumped at. I had very little grappling. Some sweeps and takedowns were about it. I have yet to need to use any of the locks or throws in a practical situation, but their usefulness is readily obvious.

I think that the mentality of loving one and disparging the other is a combination of elitism, insecurity, and cultural norms. 

*Elitism:* My art is the most effective and I don't need anything else.

*Insecurity:* If I test my skills against a grappler and suck, then I'll need to take back the above statement.

*Cultural norms:* This may be the biggest reason. 

For decades, boxing was the premier fight event in the US. Nearly everyone knows the names of the big champs, even now, and boxing has been on the decline for a solid decade at least. Hardly anyone outside of specific UFC fans and MMA participants know who the champs are in MMA.

In a room with a hundred people a solid quarter to half will know who Floyd Mayweather is. All will know who Sugaray Leonard is. Same for Hollyfield, Ali, Tyson, Forman and Frasier. If I say Ken Shamrock anywhere but on this board and amongst WWE fans, I get a lot of raised eyebrows and blank expressions.  Say Kung Le instead and the WWE fans join the blank expressions.

Stand up fighting was the gold standard in terms of fighting for most of the twenieth century and still carries a greater following than MMA. Wrestling has always been looked at as a high school/collegiate sport with no real place to go but the Olympics. Pro wrestling has been looked down upon as play fighting for as long as I have been alive.




seasoned said:


> Most people in a fight want to get you to the ground.


This has never been my personal experience. I generally question this, as I have been in and seen a good number of real fights and very few have gone to the ground. No fight that I have been in after elementary school has gone to the ground.

Most people have barely adequate striking skills, let alone grappling skills, and would have no particular advantage in taking anyone to the ground unless they simply outweigh their opponent visibly enough to consider that an advantage. 

Until the UFC became popular, I never heard this arguement made by anyone.



seasoned said:


> I feel the ones that don&#8217;t think that may end up there, are in for a rude awakening.


Murphy's Law: Any situation that you assume that you will not be in and/or have not trained for is, of course, the very situation that you will find yourself in. 

To answer the OP, grappling is *very* useful. Most historical sword manuals involve an element of grappling, and I think that we can all agree that a sword is a vastly superior striking instrument to that of the foot or fist. If grappling was considered useful to a guy armed with two to three feet of sharpened metal, then imagine how much more useful it is to the unarmed.

As I stated earlier, most people have barely adequate striking skills and considerably less skill in grappling. Having any skill in grappling puts you ahead of the curve. Actual skill in striking puts you even further ahead. Substantial skill in both makes you guy or gal that "most people in a fight" wind up wishing that they had come to peaceful resolution with instead.

Daniel


----------



## seasoned (Apr 14, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I disagree with this. I would say that effective self defense arts involve all aspects of self defense. A true martial art, in my mind, is simply an art that teaches some actual martial skill, whether self defense related or not. Kyudo, for example, is a martial art in my opinion, because it teaches an actual martial skill. The self defense applications are, however, dubious.


 
Have at it stevebjj 
*Martial arts* are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honour. Many arts are also practised competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
The term _martial arts_ refers to the art of warfare (from Mars, the god of war). It comes from a 15th-century European term for fighting arts now known as historical European martial arts. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a _martial artist_.
In popular culture, the term _martial arts_ often specifically refers to the combat systems that originated in Asian cultures, especially East Asian martial arts. However, the term actually refers to any codified combat system, regardless of origin. Europe is home to many extensive systems of martial arts, both living traditions (e.g. Jogo do Pau and other stick and sword fencing and Savate, a French kicking style developed by sailors and street fighters) and older systems of historical European martial arts that have existed through the present, many of which are now being reconstructed. In the Americas, Native Americans have traditions of open-handed martial arts including wrestling, and Hawaiians have historically practiced arts featuring small- and large-joint manipulation. A mix of origins is found in the athletic movements of Capoeira, which African slaves developed based on skills they had brought from Africa.
While each style has unique facets that make it different from other martial arts, a common characteristic is the systemization of fighting techniques. Methods of training vary and may include sparring (simulated combat) or formal sets or routines of techniques known as forms or _kata_. Forms are especially common in the Asian and Asian-derived martial arts.[1]


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 14, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I disagree with this. I would say that effective self defense arts involve all aspects of self defense. A true martial art, in my mind, is simply an art that teaches some actual martial skill, whether self defense related or not. Kyudo, for example, is a martial art in my opinion, because it teaches an actual martial skill. The self defense applications are, however, dubious.


Keep in mind that the term 'martial art' is kind of a western invention, and has become a bit of a catch-all for anything that is even remotely combat related or somehow Asian and not classified as anything else in the eyes of the general public.

I've met people who think that yoga is a martial art (no kidding).

Yes, kyudo is a "martial art" by virtue of the bow having been a weapon of war, but if all I use my bow for is dear hunting, is that really a martial application? Olympic archery is as much a martial art as kyudo by your definition, yet it is seldom viewed as such by most people.  Personally, I think that this is because Olympic archery is not Asian.

As for self defense, Kyudo is as effective as any other projectile weapon in defending the home. Perhaps moreso; plenty of people own a gun and never practice with it, keep the ammo locked up in one place and the gun locked up in another. It is doubtful that a bow and arrow will be locked away in distinct places and the kyudo practitioner is most likely practicing more often that the average gun owner. 

Daniel


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 14, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Should I start a new thread to discuss the fact that grappling does not mean ground work.  Ground work is part of grappling but grappling is not just ground work.  Judo, all types of jiu-jitsu, hapkido, all types of wrestling, chi na, shuai chiao, and many other styles are all grappling.



Exactly... this is what I meant in my post when I said "stand up grappling".

I view attacks like the "bear-hug lift and slam" as grappling (and interestingly something i saw in a bar fight recently) Judo type throws, standing chokes, etc... all as forms of grappling, and they tend to happen (at least from the onset) standing up...  Even grab and come-alongs I would consider grappling attacks.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Have at it stevebjj
> *Martial arts* are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honour. Many arts are also practised competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
> The term _martial arts_ refers to the art of warfare (from Mars, the god of war). It comes from a 15th-century European term for fighting arts now known as historical European martial arts. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a _martial artist_.
> In popular culture, the term _martial arts_ often specifically refers to the combat systems that originated in Asian cultures, especially East Asian martial arts. However, the term actually refers to any codified combat system, regardless of origin. Europe is home to many extensive systems of martial arts, both living traditions (e.g. Jogo do Pau and other stick and sword fencing and Savate, a French kicking style developed by sailors and street fighters) and older systems of historical European martial arts that have existed through the present, many of which are now being reconstructed. In the Americas, Native Americans have traditions of open-handed martial arts including wrestling, and Hawaiians have historically practiced arts featuring small- and large-joint manipulation. A mix of origins is found in the athletic movements of Capoeira, which African slaves developed based on skills they had brought from Africa.
> While each style has unique facets that make it different from other martial arts, a common characteristic is the systemization of fighting techniques. Methods of training vary and may include sparring (simulated combat) or formal sets or routines of techniques known as forms or _kata_. Forms are especially common in the Asian and Asian-derived martial arts.[1]


LOL... in the future, you might just post the link to wikipedia.
You said, "A true MA would involve all aspects of self defense."  I disagree.

First, self defense and combat are often two different things, particularly as it relates to warfare.  It could, in fact, be argued that warfare and self defense are antonyms with regards to combat. 

Second, there are many recognized martial arts that specialize in one aspect of martial training, as I pointed out.  Some teach a clear martial skill that is no longer applicable to self defense, Kyudo being but one example.

Finally, if you are going to copy/paste from Wiki, at least find something that supports your argument.  This article rambles from physical domination and defense through religion into warfare and then back out to competition and sport.   I guess if you only read the first line, it superficially supports your assertion that a martial art is about defense.  Of course, that is an opinion with which I disagree.

I would agree with the point in this excerpt that "a common characteristic [of all martial arts systems] is the systemization of fighting techniques."  That was the point I was building on.  Martial arts teach a recognizable martial skill, whether used or even appropriate for self defense or not.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Keep in mind that the term 'martial art' is kind of a western invention, and has become a bit of a catch-all for anything that is even remotely combat related or somehow Asian and not classified as anything else in the eyes of the general public.
> 
> I've met people who think that yoga is a martial art (no kidding).
> 
> ...


I think we should start a new thread.


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 14, 2009)

By grappling are you just talking about on the ground grappling or all grappling (standing, throwing, and ground)?

I agree that having skill in grappling is very important.  Even for someone who prefers training in stand-up fighting, they should still be prepared for those who know how to fight on the ground. 

One thing I can't stand though is how many guys I hear say, "all fights go to the ground".  Is there any data on this?  I've seen many fights and have been in a few myself.  Almost no fights that I've witnessed have gone to the ground.  Has anyone actually done a study to see how many fights have ended on the ground?  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  It does.  I've been there.  But ground fighters need to realize that they need stand-up skills and stand-up fighters need to train on the ground.  The cross-training benefits the fighter by teaching them how to work in all situations.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 14, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> I think we should start a new thread.


Go for it

Daniel


----------



## seasoned (Apr 14, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> LOL... in the future, you might just post the link to wikipedia.
> You said, "A true MA would involve all aspects of self defense." I disagree.
> 
> First, self defense and combat are often two different things, particularly as it relates to warfare. It could, in fact, be argued that warfare and self defense are antonyms with regards to combat.
> ...


I will stick my neck out and say you would be one relentless opponent on the floor, I mean mat.


----------



## Joab (Apr 14, 2009)

I would never say or write grappling is a waste of time because it isn't. If your on the ground you will soon see the value of grappling. That said, it's only common sense that you don't want to go to the ground in a self defense emergency because your attacker's buddies could than kick the living crap out of you while your on the ground no matter how good a martial artist you are. But waste of time? Never! I would like to take BJJ some day.


----------



## MJS (Apr 14, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> By grappling are you just talking about on the ground grappling or all grappling (standing, throwing, and ground)?
> 
> I agree that having skill in grappling is very important. Even for someone who prefers training in stand-up fighting, they should still be prepared for those who know how to fight on the ground.


 
IMO, a grappling art will help whether you're standing, on the ground or being thrown. 



> One thing I can't stand though is how many guys I hear say, "all fights go to the ground". Is there any data on this? I've seen many fights and have been in a few myself. Almost no fights that I've witnessed have gone to the ground. Has anyone actually done a study to see how many fights have ended on the ground? I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It does. I've been there. But ground fighters need to realize that they need stand-up skills and stand-up fighters need to train on the ground. The cross-training benefits the fighter by teaching them how to work in all situations.


 
I hate that saying too.  IIRC, it was a study done in LA by the Gracies, but I believe it was referring to LEOs, not the average citizen.  Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in that "90% of all fights...." statement.


----------



## Ronin74 (Apr 14, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I guess what I am looking for is anyone that has any form of valid information as to why a Martial Artist should not spend, or waste, time training grappling as opposed to stand up abilities alone?


I think it goes both ways in that it's easy for anyone to consider an aspect of martial arts training to be a "waste" of time if they're not interested. Grapplers may think striking is a waste; strikers may think grappling is a waste; both may think weapons training is a waste.

In my opinion, a real martial artist wouldn't ignore those aspects of training, but rather make sure that they can handle those situations, using what they know.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 15, 2009)

You know what's funny?  I got to class tonite, well, ok its 4am, so I guess last night technically, and my teacher asked for a warm up technique...

I made everyone do groundfighting.  Why?  Cuz I thought of this thread.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 15, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Absolutely. *I find it very strange when people in either a straight grappling art or a straight stand up art say that the other is useless or unnecessary.* I have spent a long time in taekwondo, which as you know is a stand up and striking art. It has been an effective art for me in practical SD situations. The first chance I had to learn hapkido, I jumped at. I had very little grappling. Some sweeps and takedowns were about it. I have yet to need to use any of the locks or throws in a practical situation, but their usefulness is readily obvious.
> 
> I think that the mentality of loving one and disparging the other is a combination of elitism, insecurity, and cultural norms.
> 
> ...


(1) I wholeheartedly agree, that one enhances the other, grappling or standup. I dont feel that one needs to change their focus, if it is stand up, then let it be standup with a working knowledge of grappling. If it is grappling then so be it, but have a working knowledge of strikes and kicks. From a standup perspective I am looking for the hit, I am not opposed to having a feel for grappling but it is the hit that I focus on. From a grappling prospective, if that was my art, then I would focus on the submission with hits secondary.
(2) I may have used the term, taken to the ground loosely, more accurately may be end up on the ground. I have found that most untrained opponents, when challenged successfully with standup, will grab and maul so to speck, with the greater possibility of ending up down. 
(3) Revert back to one.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 15, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I usually hear stand up martial artists say this, and when asked if they have tried grappling of any kind, they always say NO NEVER. Whan asked if they have worked with any highly skilled grapplers of any kind to test their defenses, they respond with a NO, or someone with very limited skills, or someone from class simply playing at taking them down.
> When asked if they want to test their abilities versus a takedown situation, its either a complete denial to even try with some statement of deadly skills and not wanting to hurt another person, or they accept and in my experience so far they are completely inadequate at defending themselves, and there is a huge wake up call, or more denial...


I'd have to ask someone issuing such a challenge if they were willing to do this outside in the parking lot. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a very good test (the 'shoot' - is that the term? - for example, is much more high risk if one is going to land on asphalt).

I don't think any training is ever wasted effort. I've gotten something from every instructor/partner I've ever studied/worked out with. That's not to say all teachers or opponents were equal, or that I don't have preferences. I don't naturally like ground grappling (love stand up version, tho, where he goes to the ground alone ), but ime, the ground can't be ignored. And the acknowledgment has to begin with lots of proper practice falling, cuz the ground is the hardest opponent I've ever 'met'.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 15, 2009)

seasoned said:


> (1) I wholeheartedly agree, that one enhances the other, grappling or standup. I dont feel that one needs to change their focus, if it is stand up, then let it be standup with a working knowledge of grappling. If it is grappling then so be it, but have a working knowledge of strikes and kicks. From a standup perspective I am looking for the hit, I am not opposed to having a feel for grappling but it is the hit that I focus on. From a grappling prospective, if that was my art, then I would focus on the submission with hits secondary.
> (2) I may have used the term, taken to the ground loosely, more accurately may be end up on the ground. I have found that most untrained opponents, when challenged successfully with standup, will grab and maul so to speck, with the greater possibility of ending up down.
> (3) Revert back to one.


 
Again, grappling does not mean ground work.  Stand up vs. grappling is a false dichotomy.  Most grappling is done standing.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 15, 2009)

MJS said:


> IMO, a grappling art will help whether you're standing, on the ground or being thrown.


As would a striking art, no? 



> I hate that saying too.  IIRC, it was a study done in LA by the Gracies, but I believe it was referring to LEOs, not the average citizen.  Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in that "90% of all fights...." statement.


Agreed. In more than two dozen less than four, the only time the fight went to the ground for me was courtesy of a slick street and new dress shoes. And the other guy did not follow me. He just waited while I struggled up on two broken wrists. :ultracool



			
				blindsage said:
			
		

> Again, grappling does not mean ground work.  Stand up vs. grappling is a false dichotomy.  Most grappling is done standing.


Somehow I missed the second page of this thread the first time through, so apologies to those whose points I walked over in my first post. :asian:


----------



## jarrod (Apr 15, 2009)

even if 90% end up on the ground, 100% start on the feet.

but anyway, grappling is silly, i don't know why anyone would train it.

jf


----------



## Guardian (Apr 15, 2009)

I learned along time ago, that no training is useless, it's all good, it's good to have a little bit of this and that, mixing it altogether to make yourself a better tactician, it's what the individual wants or doesn't.  It's all good in my book.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 15, 2009)

I once learned a capoeira move for spinning backwards under an opponents high spinning kick and hitting them with your ***.  Sounds ridiculous, looks ridiculous, sends the opponent flying and usually hurt from an awkward landing.  


Guardian said:


> no training is useless...make yourself a better tactician


----------



## Ronin74 (Apr 15, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I once learned a capoeira move for spinning backwards under an opponents high spinning kick and hitting them with your ***. Sounds ridiculous, looks ridiculous, sends the opponent flying and usually hurt from an awkward landing.


I've been on the giving and receiving end of this move. It gets scarier when they snatch your foot as you're getting bumped.


----------



## MJS (Apr 16, 2009)

kidswarrior said:


> As would a striking art, no?


 
To a point yes.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Apr 21, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Interesting.
> I posted this on several martial arts forums and only one board actually had people who posted saying they actually thought along those lines. Unfortunately none gave any reasons that made any amount of sense. All of them are well into their advanced years as well. The phraseold dog and new tricks immediately came to mind. Personally I love Grappling, I consider myself a stand up artist, but have been training in BJJ for several years now, I hear the arguments against grappling in person alot, it never ceases to make me shake my head.


 

Was that on KenpoNet?


----------



## Balrog (Apr 22, 2009)

*Grappling is a Waste of time
--------------
I disagree.  We practice martial arts for a variety of reasons but the foundation of all m. a. training is self defense.  Why would one totally ignore a major aspect of that training?


*


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 22, 2009)

hongkongfooey said:


> was that on kenponet?


 
no lol


----------



## chinto (Apr 24, 2009)

ok my two cents worth here....  Grappling is not a waste of time for self defense, but rolling around on the ground if you can avoid it is not a smart way to do it.  

Okinawan karate has a lot of grappling in it, but the idea is to put the attacker down and be standing to finish it.  this is because the attackers usually do not come in singles but in groups.  being on the ground means that his friends can kick your head in while you are there.


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 25, 2009)

Grappling _IS _a waste of time... _IF_ your life, safety or that of another is at stake...  grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting. 

I respect everyone and am not attempting to defile or deface any "martial arts"... I am merely commenting from a "violence" or "a-social" standpoint.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 25, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Grappling _IS _a waste of time... _IF_ your life, safety or that of another is at stake...  grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting.
> 
> I respect everyone and am not attempting to defile or deface any "martial arts"... I am merely commenting from a "violence" or "a-social" standpoint.


Grappling, joint locks and throws covers a HUGE section of the martial arts. Not just arts that use those skills as their central focus but many of the more "hard styles" also include some grappling, joint locks and throws into the style.  A blanket statement like that certainly makes one wonder if a true understanding of the full spectrum of self defense is understood.  What do you suggest is the only way to defend yourself if you cut that many different ways of defending ones self out of the equation?


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 25, 2009)

not everyone can be thrown-locked-manipulated... 
size - strength-weight-pain tolerance-chemical additives come into play here...  

everyone can be dumped and broken... no matter what.  


here is where I am going with this... by injuring a human I can control thier center of gravity by replacing it with mine... gravity and physics will do the rest.  If I grab his testicles and squeeze with one hand and elbow him in the throat with the other he is getting dumped no matter what.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 25, 2009)

The groin grab/elbow to the throat technique won't work everytime.  Arts that use joint locks are free to turn that lock into a break.  Locks are just safer from a legal perspective.  Throwing arts use the concept of replacing an attackers center with theirs as the center of their art.  While pain compliance may not always work (as with your valid point about chemical additives) the technique used to apply pain may often be used to destroy the joint that is being manipulated, there by rendering the limb useless.  Now, I don't expect to convince you that arts other than the one that you practice is effective for true self defense.  I've been here far too long to even attempt it.  However, I would be impressed if you'd at least visit a few schools that train in those aspects of the arts that you readily cast off and at least attempt to realize that they have their place in self defense. :asian:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 25, 2009)

An art that gets a lot of flak for being useless in a real situation is aikido.
However, I suggest you look at this vid on youtube and then think about your words. If aikido works in an MMA cage, it'll probably work in a streetfight as well.






Joint locks, throws, and tai sabaki are definitely not useless.
In case you were wondering: there is a good reason why aikidoka perform big rolls when someone is doing a seemingly trivial manipulations. They do it to prevent a face-plant, or to prevent their elbow from bending the wrong way.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 25, 2009)

Excellent vid, Bruno.  Both of those techniques are ones that are introduced at the beginner level in my style and progress into more and more applications as the student progresses.


----------



## MJS (Apr 25, 2009)

Like anything in the arts, locks have their place.  IMO, I don't think that they're something that we should necessarily look for, but take advantage of when the opportunity presents itself.  As an example...a lock flow drill will take us thru a series of locks.  Of course, in a RL situation, nobody is going to flow from one to the next as in the drill, but the idea of the drill is to teach how to flow so if something fails, it'll be easier to move to something else.  

I do the majority of my locks in Arnis, and yes, I've worked with people who are cousins to Gumby, I've worked with people who I barely have to apply the lock, and they're tapping, and I've worked with guys who are huge.  There are times when the thought of applying a lock to them would probably be pointless vs. doing something that would probably stand a better chance of working.  Does this mean I toss the locks out?  Of course not, because they still have value.  If the lock does nothing more than off balance them for a moment, thats fine.  I can move onto something else.  As we saw in that clip Bruno posted, the end results of a lock can be devastating.  Whats that phrase that we always see on BJJ shirts....Tap or snap.   So, thats fine with me.  If someone is not feeling the pain from the wrist lock, I'm more than sure when the wrist breaks, they'll feel that, and it'll take away one of their weapons.

Of course, no matter how big, strong, or what kind of drug someone is on, a choke, such as a RNC, is probably a sure shot at success.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 27, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> not everyone can be thrown-locked-manipulated...
> size - strength-weight-pain tolerance-chemical additives come into play here...
> 
> everyone can be dumped and broken... no matter what.
> ...


 
No technique works on everyone.  Your standards of 'strength-weight-pain tolerance-chemical additives' apply to the same techniques you mentioned.  Try your guaranteed techniques on somebody high on PCP and see who gets dumped first, if you're even able to get inside their defenses close enough to do those moves to begin with.  There are always exceptions, but your idea of what works and is effective or not seems pretty limited and not based much in reality.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 28, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Grappling _IS _a waste of time... _IF_ your life, safety or that of another is at stake... grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting.


I must respectfully disagree with you on this point, unless you limit your definition of grappling entirely to groundwork. 

Even if you were referring soley to groundwork, I would _still_ disagree that it is useless outside of a social setting, though I would concede that you would have a stronger case.

Grappling is not limited to groundwork, and grappling can be very effective. Grappling techniques have been an important and vital part of military training for centuries, and its inclusion is not for the purpose of board soldiers wagering on wrestling matches.

Daniel


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 28, 2009)

When I first read BLACK LION's post I thought he was joking. Guess that wasn't the case. All the above posts have explained quite well why grappling is effective in real fighting. Not to mention that almost any video that shows people fighting for real has some degree of grappling.

If these techniques weren't effective why would every warrior class in the world have them?


----------



## chinto (Apr 28, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Grappling _IS _a waste of time... _IF_ your life, safety or that of another is at stake...  grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting.
> 
> I respect everyone and am not attempting to defile or deface any "martial arts"... I am merely commenting from a "violence" or "a-social" standpoint.




I must disagree,  grappling that does not go to the ground with the attacker is very very effective. if you lock and throw or brake and throw the attacker then you can if necessary finish it with deadly force.  

Also remember that at least several throws in the Okinawan arts done properly do in fact end in a fatality most of the time when done for real.  Most of your older arts have a grappling component, but it is not one that wants to be on the ground with the attacker as you are to vulnerable there. 

the other thing is some of the grapples do things that prevent the attacker form continuing their attack as you use techniques on them that may or may not be crippling or fatal.  

SO I must conclude that either you were referring to arts that go to the ground with the attacker by choice such as BJJ or are not really trained in such applications.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm still surprised at the number of people who think that when they hear the word GRAPPLING, that it means the ground.  Yes, that is what we saw in the early days, but look at the fighters today....we have clinch work, chokes while standing, and of couse, a few other things.  We may not see as much in the ring, due to the fact that the fighters are just wearing shorts, but throw on a gi top, a shirt, a jacket, and you'd be surprised as to what good things you can find.  Yes, some slight adjustments will have to be made, but hey, thats part of the game.


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 28, 2009)

blindsage said:


> No technique works on everyone. Your standards of 'strength-weight-pain tolerance-chemical additives' apply to the same techniques you mentioned. Try your guaranteed techniques on somebody high on PCP and see who gets dumped first, if you're even able to get inside their defenses close enough to do those moves to begin with. There are always exceptions, but your idea of what works and is effective or not seems pretty limited and not based much in reality.


 what "reality" are you referring to...   the comfy bubble or unforgiving actuality...   no technique works every time... I am not referring to technique...  I am referring to principle, which is basic truth...  I am not guaranteeing any "technique" ...I am merely stating that by targeting an inherent weakness and driving the entire body through that point you are creating injury...  not pain.  A thai kick to the leg is very painful but a broken hip or knee is debilitating and possibly permanent. 
When you actually do train to face a real situation in which your life or that of another is in danger...your whole playbook goes out the window and you are left with simple basic principles to employ under gross motor function....  

hmmmmm

shoot in for an arm bar or submission or crush a trachea.... ???

a standing arm lock to control a blade or a thumb knuckle through the orbital fissures...???

pcp or not... with a crushed trachea its only a matter of time... with crushed or gouged eyeballs its only a matter of time...   a ruptured inner ear , middle ear or eardrum is only a matter of time.... we are talking the destruction of sensory organs my friend... not some arm lock on someone who you can control or think you can...   I dont deal in defenses... If I want to get to you to injure you or shut you down for good, I will... plain and simple... no compromise here... its 300% me... 0 them... and I am getting to that grey matter if I have to shut every organ or break every bone on the way....

injuries work on everyone... regardless or thier disposition.... 
you are speaking of pain... I am speaking of injury...  I feel like you should understand the two before questioning my experience... 
I dont spew my ignorance on these boards and I would request the same courtesy... I am here, merely offering a different angle...take it or leave it but dont disrespect me.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> what "reality" are you referring to... the comfy bubble or unforgiving actuality... no technique works every time... I am not referring to technique... I am referring to principle, which is basic truth... I am not guaranteeing any "technique" ...I am merely stating that by targeting an inherent weakness and driving the entire body through that point you are creating injury... not pain. A thai kick to the leg is very painful but a broken hip or knee is debilitating and possibly permanent.
> When you actually do train to face a real situation in which your life or that of another is in danger...your whole playbook goes out the window and you are left with simple basic principles to employ under gross motor function....
> 
> hmmmmm
> ...


 
I certainly see your points, however, for myself, I think its wise to assess the situation, and base a response off of that.  In other words, crushing the throat of some bum on the street, who simply stands in front of you asking for money, will most likely find yourself in jail.  Now, let that same bum pull a blade or gun, well, thats a different story, and yes, in that case, I could justify that kind of force.  

I'm sure you knew this, but I figured, that by the nature of some of the recent posts, I thought I'd throw it out, just to keep all of us in check with what we do.


----------



## chinto (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> what "reality" are you referring to...   the comfy bubble or unforgiving actuality...   no technique works every time... I am not referring to technique...  I am referring to principle, which is basic truth...  I am not guaranteeing any "technique" ...I am merely stating that by targeting an inherent weakness and driving the entire body through that point you are creating injury...  not pain.  A thai kick to the leg is very painful but a broken hip or knee is debilitating and possibly permanent.
> When you actually do train to face a real situation in which your life or that of another is in danger...your whole playbook goes out the window and you are left with simple basic principles to employ under gross motor function....
> 
> hmmmmm
> ...




the 'grapples' that are in the Okinawan systems are designed to brake and other wise cause injury that is debilitating.  most of the older systems do the same.  I am not sure what your getting at, perhaps again your referring to what they use in say the UFC cage matches and such?

the UFC and cage matches have a lot of rules to protect the fighter. Most of the older systems do not care about such things, quite the opposite, rather are looking to maim and injure.  

The older systems have grapples that are designed to give you an advantage of controlling them so you can do maximum damage in minimum time and with least effort expended. 

This is not rolling around on the ground like say BJJ in the UFC! but rather using the grapples to bring maximum damage to the attacker with least effort and time expended. 

also, as stated before, there are times when deadly force would be counter productive in this days legal environment.  where a police officer might be able to cripple with little scrutiny you will most assuredly not be able to under the exact same conditions!  If nothing else the low life's relatives will be suing you for excessive force or even file with the DA charges of criminal assault !

10 or 20 years in prison is a stiff price to pay.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 29, 2009)

1. My teacher's teacher told us of a time when he was attacked in his youth and put in a headlock, this man threatned to kill my him so, my teacher's teacher (teacher x2) rammed his fingers into the guy's eyes and permanently blinded one side of him. You know what happened? The guy didn't let go. He said, "You may take my eye, but I'm going to ****ing kill you." So teacher x2 took two punches to the face, until he got his bearings and _threw him to the ground_ rendering him in a bad state, where upon the police arrived.

So there you go, proof that grappling works.

2. So every fight you're in you're going to use deadly force? Others have already commented on lower levels of attack not necessarily justifying such force. What if a friend of yours got really really drunk or something and attacked you, would you cripple him forever?

The truth is that grappling and striking are both necessary for a street or battlefield effective martial art. I wouldn't recommend fighting it out on the ground if you could get up, but even groundfighting is somewhat necessary incase you find yourself on the ground and need to get up quickly.

Grappling can involve submission, _if the attacker is not someone you want to badly hurt_, but these "submissions" are most of the time actually breaks or killing throws or chokes. 

You're right that gross motor skills are more relaible that fine ones in a fight, but many throws, locks, breaks, and chokes use gross motor skills. Even fine motor skills can be used if a person trains enough in them, though this is very difficult and requires a high level of martial skill.

If you don't see the purpose of grappling in a real life fight, then I must conclude that either 1) you have no actual experience in combative grappling techniques or 2) you have a very limited understanding of fighting.

I'm not trying to put you down or anything, it just that most of us seem to agree that you don't have a very valid point on this subject.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION, I was looking at your profile to see what you trained in and under primary art and ranking it says "none". Have you had no formal training?


----------



## blindsage (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> what "reality" are you referring to... the comfy bubble or unforgiving actuality... no technique works every time... I am not referring to technique... I am referring to principle, which is basic truth... I am not guaranteeing any "technique" ...I am merely stating that by targeting an inherent weakness and driving the entire body through that point you are creating injury... not pain. A thai kick to the leg is very painful but a broken hip or knee is debilitating and possibly permanent.
> When you actually do train to face a real situation in which your life or that of another is in danger...your whole playbook goes out the window and you are left with simple basic principles to employ under gross motor function....


Great, if life and limb are at stake, I, and most everyone else on here would agree. But as has been pointed out before, not all situations require murder and/or maiming, nor is it appropriate in all situations. And yes, when you talk about 'targeting an inherent weakness', 'driving the entire body through that point', 'broken hip or knee', you are talking about technique and not just principle. You have to know how to accomplish all of those things, and they all require technique of some kind. 'Targeting' anything is a skill, not a simple gross motor movement. Using your whole body in an attack is a skill, and not an overnight one to learn. Breaking joints and bones require a knoledge of anatomy, angles and use of force that is relatively simple for some things (fingers, knees) and not simple at all for others (hip, wrist), and requires training in technique to accomplish.



> shoot in for an arm bar or submission or crush a trachea.... ???


Who advocates shooting in for an armbar for street defense? And crushing a trachea is great (I guess) if you can get through to their throat, which doesn't happen just because you want it to.



> a standing arm lock to control a blade or a thumb knuckle through the orbital fissures...???


If somebody comes at you with a blade, good luck just sticking your thumb in their eye without any other entry technique, trapping or grappling.



> pcp or not... with a crushed trachea its only a matter of time... with crushed or gouged eyeballs its only a matter of time... a ruptured inner ear , middle ear or eardrum is only a matter of time.... we are talking the destruction of sensory organs my friend... not some arm lock on someone who you can control or think you can... I dont deal in defenses... If I want to get to you to injure you or shut you down for good, I will... plain and simple... no compromise here... its 300% me... 0 them... and I am getting to that grey matter if I have to shut every organ or break every bone on the way....


I've never had to deal with anyone on PCP, but from the police stories I've heard, I wouldn't bet on anything specific working. So, you crushed their trachea and dude's going to die in 5 minutes, great. In the mean time he's busy taking you with him. And good luck with always being the bigger badass in a fight. You may have no compromise, and I guess that's great for you, but against a better, smarter fighter, with better technique, more experience, and even bigger balls....good luck with that.



> injuries work on everyone... regardless or thier disposition....
> you are speaking of pain... I am speaking of injury... I feel like you should understand the two before questioning my experience...


Yes, injuries work on everyone, but not all people are the same, not all injuries are the same. And no, me speaking of grappling as useful does not indicate some ignorance of the difference between pain and injury, it indicates an understanding of the difference. Especially since much grappling involves breaking joints and limbs, attacking vital points and taking opponents down brutally, which you seem unaware of.



> I dont spew my ignorance on these boards and I would request the same courtesy... I am here, merely offering a different angle...take it or leave it but dont disrespect me.


There is no disrespect. There is a difference of opinion. You presented yours very forcefully and was challenged on it by other experienced martial artists. You say


> Grappling _IS _a waste of time... _IF_ your life, safety or that of another is at stake... grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting.


To most martial artists with any grappling experience, this statement demonstrates a lack of experience/understanding of grappling, and a lack of understanding of its usefulness in self-defense/fighting/combat situations demonstrated by the fact, as stated by a previous poster, that most militaries throughout history have included some form of grappling in their training, and continue to do so today. I'm not trying to disrespect you, but there are a lot of other experienced martial artists, many with plenty of real life self-defense/fight experience, on here and none of them appear to be agreeing with you. There's a reason for that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I am merely stating that by targeting an inherent weakness and driving the entire body through that point you are creating injury... not pain. A thai kick to the leg is very painful but a broken hip or knee is debilitating and possibly permanent.
> When you actually do train to face a real situation in which your life or that of another is in danger...your whole playbook goes out the window and you are left with simple basic principles to employ under gross motor function.... .


Agreed, but one can visit a great deal of injury upon another via effective grapples.



BLACK LION said:


> shoot in for an arm bar or submission or crush a trachea.... ???
> 
> a standing arm lock to control a blade or a thumb knuckle through the orbital fissures...???.


Why _shoot_ for any of these?  I certainly will not shoot for an armbar or crushing the trachea; the trachea crush is nice if the opportunity presents itself, but it is a very small target that requires me to enter my opponent's strike zone to execute.  And nobody with a brain is going to go for a submission hold in real life, so that is a bit of a straw man comparison.

As for the choice between a standing arm lock to control a blade vs. a thumb knuckle through the orbital fissures, again, why would I choose either of these?  You have the same issue as the arm bar vs. trachea crush: close contact in an opponents strike zone and a small, well defended target.  Neither are good options.  If the trachea crush and the eye gouge present themselves, than take them if you can.  But nobody in their right mind will shoot for either.

In both scenarios, I'll stick with maintaining distance and seeking a means of escape while being aware of any 'friends' he may have.  Any strikes will be aimed at incapacitation, so low kicks to the knees would likely be my first choice; the knees are much more difficult to defend than the trachea or orbital sockets.  If I am forced into a grapple, I can still stike the knees while locking him up, but I would much prefer to avoid contact close enough for a grapple.



BLACK LION said:


> pcp or not... with a crushed trachea its only a matter of time... with crushed or gouged eyeballs its only a matter of time... a ruptured inner ear , middle ear or eardrum is only a matter of time.... we are talking the destruction of sensory organs my friend... not some arm lock on someone who you can control or think you can... I dont deal in defenses... If I want to get to you to injure you or shut you down for good, I will... plain and simple... no compromise here... its 300% me... 0 them... and I am getting to that grey matter if I have to shut every organ or break every bone on the way.....


And your attacker will likely have the same attitude and may have friends.  Friends who may attempt to grapple you to keep you still.  A bit of grappling ability can aid you in keeping yourself from being grabbed or put into a grapple, even if you do not need to initiate a grapple yourself.



BLACK LION said:


> injuries work on everyone... regardless or thier disposition....
> you are speaking of pain... I am speaking of injury... I feel like you should understand the two before questioning my experience...
> I dont spew my ignorance on these boards and I would request the same courtesy... I am here, merely offering a different angle...take it or leave it but dont disrespect me.


You make some good points, but before accusing others of disrespect, you may wish to take a step back and look at the tone of your own posts.

Daniel


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 29, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> 1. My teacher's teacher told us of a time when he was attacked in his youth and put in a headlock, this man threatned to kill my him so, my teacher's teacher (teacher x2) rammed his fingers into the guy's eyes and permanently blinded one side of him. You know what happened? The guy didn't let go. He said, "You may take my eye, but I'm going to ****ing kill you." So teacher x2 took two punches to the face, until he got his bearings and _threw him to the ground_ rendering him in a bad state, where upon the police arrived.*  You cannot take any singular injury to the bank and expect to cash out. You must continue till the threat ceases.  Injuries are like links in a chain...you must link them one by one till satisfied with the effect or result.  *
> 
> So there you go, proof that grappling works. *If you call a "headlock" and a throw to the ground grappling*
> 
> ...


 
*Most of who? The couple guys thanking you in your posts. What about the many who thank me without making a public spectacle about it. I enjoy how you have made it a personal point to discredit me directly. I post here becuase everyone is respectful and professional in how they conduct themselves. I have yet to personally direct disrespect or contempt to any individual member of this board.  I make general statements based on my own convictions.    I would much rather you actually read and try to understand my perspective before you come around pushing and boasting yours.....    *

*AND....  I have no need nor any desire to uplaod a resume for reference... this isnt some job website or datinig service... *
*You want my experience, you have to come and get it. *


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> *Most of who? The couple guys thanking you in your posts. What about the many who thank me without making a public spectacle about it. I enjoy how you have made it a personal point to discredit me directly. I post here becuase everyone is respectful and professional in how they conduct themselves. I have yet to personally direct disrespect or contempt to any individual member of this board. I make general statements based on my own convictions. I would much rather you actually read and try to understand my perspective before you come around pushing and boasting yours..... *




Yes, this forum is good because of its friendly nature.  I think we should all do our best to keep this thread friendly.   Of course, everyone will have their opinions on things.  While we may not agree, we should at least respect that differences will happen.  

*



			AND.... I have no need nor any desire to uplaod a resume for reference... this isnt some job website or datinig service...
		
Click to expand...

*


> *You want my experience, you have to come and get it. *


 
Of course, however, its always helpful to know the background of someone.  I mean, if I had a dollar for every person I came across on various forums, who were nothing but armchair QBs, I'd be rich.  Not saying thats the case with you, just making a general statement.  As for the last line of your post, I'm going out on a limb and assuming that wasn't intended to be a challenge.  I say that because if it was a challenge, that is a first class ticket for a boot off this forum.


As for the rest of the other post that you quoted, which didn't get into this post, I'll comment on a few things....grappling is not the end all be all of SD.  However, it, like everything else, has its place and time.  In a mult. attacker situation, I'm not going to roll around.  Then again, even in a single attack situation, no matter how hard we try, nothing says that we won't end up on the ground, and if we do, the grappling arts do give us a good safe way to get back up.  

I'll also add that you seem to make it a habit to mention extreme violence in every post you make.  IMHO, I think its wise to assess the situation and base your response off of that, because if you do what you say you'd do, for someone verbally assaulting you, you're probably going to find yourself in jail.  I mean really....is it necessary to take someones eyes because they call you an *******?  If you have to end every confrontation with that amount of violence, I think you'd better re-eval. yourself.  Someone pushes you and you're going to take the eyes, knee and throat??? Damn.


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 29, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Great, if life and limb are at stake, I, and most everyone else on here would agree. But as has been pointed out before, not all situations require murder and/or maiming, nor is it appropriate in all situations.* Then its a purely avoidable confrontation that only requires you subtracting your ego and yourself from th equation.* And yes, when you talk about 'targeting an inherent weakness', 'driving the entire body through that point', 'broken hip or knee', you are talking about technique and not just principle.*No I am talking about principles of physics and physilogy.* You have to know how to accomplish all of those things, and they all require technique of some kind. *They require principles. *'Targeting' anything is a skill, not a simple gross motor movement.*"Gross motor skill". *Using your whole body in an attack is a skill, and not an overnight one to learn.*Of course not, but it does not take years of money and colorful belts either.* Breaking joints and bones require a knoledge of anatomy, angles and use of force that is relatively simple for some things (fingers, knees) and not simple at all for others (hip, wrist), and requires training in technique to accomplish. *All require the same common factor...taking the joint past its pathological limit.   there are only 6 ways a joint can break...rotation-flexion-supination-pronation-abduction-adduction...     *
> 
> Who advocates shooting in for an armbar for street defense?*Many people posing the same rebuttle you are. *And crushing a trachea is great (I guess) if you can get through to their throat, which doesn't happen just because you want it to.* Actually it does... same reason shootings and stabbings happen,  becuase they intend it to.*
> 
> ...


*I s there a reason?? You agree with me and you have to turn your back on decades of training.  I did. *
*You train your way and I train mine.  I am merely an opposing force against the norm... take it as you will it has nothing to do with a lack of skill or expertise...       this is the internet...remember *


----------



## blindsage (Apr 29, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> *I s there a reason?? You agree with me and you have to turn your back on decades of training. I did. *
> *You train your way and I train mine. I am merely an opposing force against the norm... take it as you will it has nothing to do with a lack of skill or expertise... this is the internet...remember *


Ok...good luck.


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Dude, you really need to use the quote feature, as it'll make commenting on your posts much easier.  So, for the sake of trying to sort thru this, er, um, mess, I'll comment after the bold part, which was your reply to the other poster.
> 
> _
> 
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 30, 2009)

Before this thread becomes heated, I would like to point out that on both sides of this discussion with Black Lion, good points and observations have been made.

I think that there is a bit of an issue in how grappling is defined by different posters in this discussion that may be leading to seeming disagreements.

I would also like to point out that for all any of us know, we could all be special forces bad boys & girls who can kill with our fountain pens or we could all be Soul Calibur IV junkes who have never been in a fight that did not involve joy sicks.

Since none of us knows the true experience of anyone else on this board short of knowing eachother off the web, let us avoid questioning others training and experience without some very good reason.  An obviously false statement is one thing, as are inconsistent statements, but blanket statements like, 'you obviously haven't trained for very long' or 'you don't know anything about grappling' should be avoided. 

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Apr 30, 2009)

The following is just my opinion:

Ground fighting/Ground grappling:  Engaging with an opponent on the ground.  The use of BJJ, Judo, Sambo, etc., to finish your opponent on the ground with the use of submissions or chokes.

Standing Grappling:  Clinch work.  Any time 2 opponents engage with each other, and one grabs the other, in an attempt to control them.  A bearhug, a lapel grab, a wrist grab, a choke....all versions or standing grappling.  

IMO, one doesn't need to be 'on the ground' in order to apply a choke or lock.  Of course, modifications will need to be made due to the fact that you're now standing vs. being on the ground.

These are simply tools in the toolbox.  You pull the tool that you need at the time.  You may need one tool, you may need 5, but to say that a particular tool will never be needed...foolish.  I'd rather have it and not need it, than to need it and wish I had it.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 30, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Since none of us knows the true experience of anyone else on this board short of knowing eachother off the web, let us avoid questioning others training and experience without some very good reason. An obviously false statement is one thing, as are inconsistent statements, but blanket statements like, 'you obviously haven't trained for very long' or 'you don't know anything about grappling' should be avoided.
> 
> Daniel


 

I suppose you have a point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 30, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> grappling - joint locks-throws are all useless in a _NON-SOCIAL_ setting.


 
I don't understand what you are saying here.   What is the *social setting* in which grappling, joint locks, and throws are useful?  

When I think of a social setting, I think of going out to dinner with friends.  I don't go out to dinner with them and then practice joint locks on them.

I think by definition, a fight or combat or self defense situation is a non-social setting.  You are dealing with a hostile opponent in a hostile situation.  

I guess I just don't understand the contrast you are making.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 30, 2009)

Black Lion,

How do you define 'grappling' when you say that it is useless outside of a social situation?  Do you mean taking people to the ground and submitting them or do you mean any grappling at all?

By social situation, I assume that you mean sport, drunks at parties, and jostling for social dominance within a group where physical testing is considered acceptable (such as amongs high school boys).

Just trying to see where you are coming from.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 30, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I suppose you have a point.


Actually, I was heading that one off at the pass rather than accusing anyone.  

So far, nobody has made any unqualified blanket statements in this regard.

Daniel


----------



## jarrod (Apr 30, 2009)

is this things still going?

good god, if you like grappling, do it.  if you don't, don't.  it's probably a good idea to have a basic familiarity with it but that's true of any range.  

if someone doesn't think grappling has any value, i really don't care.  it's just one more person unfamiliar with the range where i excel.  

jf


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 30, 2009)

jarrod said:


> is this things still going?
> jf



Not only is it still going, but I predict it will keep on going, with both parties repeating the same thing over and over. Then the thread will die, and be resurrected in a couple of months (or years) by someone who feels compelled to add his own view point to the discussion without bringing anything new to the table. This will trigger another dozen of messages, the thread will die, etc etc...


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 30, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't understand what you are saying here. What is the *social setting* in which grappling, joint locks, and throws are useful?
> 
> When I think of a social setting, I think of going out to dinner with friends. I don't go out to dinner with them and then practice joint locks on them.
> 
> ...


 
I define "Social" as everything up to the point where someone decides to injure the other person which in-turn equates to violence... wether it be a knife to the spleen or a bat to the head or breaking an elbow joint.  None of these things are acceptable on a social scale.   A football game with crowbars is no longer social or sport.  An mma competition where "fighters" break joints and inflict trauma on the other competitior instead of submitting them or inflicting pain is clearly a violent situation which is devoid of social standards and rules of conduct.   
Make sense??


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 30, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Black Lion,
> 
> How do you define 'grappling' when you say that it is useless outside of a social situation? Do you mean taking people to the ground and submitting them or do you mean any grappling at all?
> 
> ...


 
When I see the word grappling, I immediately make reference to styles and techniques like that in brazilian juijitsu(which I have trained in with a machado bros instructor) and yes I associate it with taking people down or standing up and "submitting" them or dominating them in that manner.   

Now if one was to ask if "siezing" like that found in chin na was viable I would sing a completely different song...  I believe in the siezing art and look at it as a definate less lethal solution. It focuses in different aspects though and IMO the more important ones FOR ME.  

and YES... that is pretty much how I define social...  basically everything outside of actual violence.  

I really appreciate you asking me to help you understand my position rather than just trying to disect it and discard it as rubbish... 

I respect that alot becuase it does not happen that way often.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 1, 2009)

Some of us see grappling as any form of fighting where you attempt to throw or break limbs by placing your hands on them in a manner that can not be construed as striking. I agree that BJJ's tendency to go to the ground is a sport oriented thing; BJJ practitioners would agree. Even so, ground fighting does have a place, just in case you end up there, but the overall goal should be to get off the ground


----------



## geezer (May 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I define "Social" as everything up to the point where someone decides to injure the other person which in-turn equates to violence... wether it be a knife to the spleen or a bat to the head or breaking an elbow joint. None of these things are acceptable on a social scale. A football game with crowbars is no longer social or sport. An mma competition where "fighters" break joints and inflict trauma on the other competitior instead of submitting them or inflicting pain is clearly a violent situation which is devoid of social standards and rules of conduct.
> Make sense??


 
Pardon me, but by this definition, anything short of a berserker attack (suicide bombing, juramentado, etc.) has a social component. This is equally true even in a criminal assault. When a mugger pulls a knife and demands your money, there is an implied social contract, ie you submit and hand over your wallet and he will let you live. When a loan shark's thugs break your knee for not paying up, you can submit, and live (as a cripple) or fight and take your chances taking on the mob. I don't get in fights. But once, a long time ago I did. Before it went to the ground, I was losing, but I had a clear shot at seriously messing the guy up. He got me in a "red-neck rasselin" style headlock. I slammed him back into a car and had a real good shot at his jewels. I also had a large screwdriver in my back pocket and could have stuck him in the gut, pumping it like a sewing machine. I chose not to... and, guess what? We ended up on the asphalt, _grappling_. Even in an all-out fight, there are social consequenses to escalating things to that level. Even war has some rules. You don't kill and torture peoples kids and families. Normally.

So I guess my confusion is over this "social" distinction. I don't see it quite as clear cut as you. ...more of a sliding scale, depending on the situation. And, in the world I live in, I wish I as better at grappling.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> When I see the word grappling, I immediately make reference to styles and techniques like that in brazilian juijitsu(which I have trained in with a machado bros instructor) and yes I associate it with taking people down or standing up and "submitting" them or dominating them in that manner.


This I think is part of the issue in this discussion.  This is part of grappling, but not grappling in its entirety.  BJJ is a sport and is based on judo, which is also more of a sport.  While both have martial application, as both are descended from jujutsu, BJJ practitioners and (from what feedback I have received) most judo practitioners are training to submit opponents in tournament.  



BLACK LION said:


> Now if one was to ask if "siezing" like that found in chin na was viable I would sing a completely different song... I believe in the siezing art and look at it as a definate less lethal solution. It focuses in different aspects though and IMO the more important ones FOR ME.


Siezing, sweeps, throws and takedowns are all grapples that do not require me to personally _go_ to the ground, which is what I practice in hapkido and taijutsu, and what you will find in western martial systems designed for combat rather than sport.

Most of us on in this discussion would include such techniques under the heading of grappling.



BLACK LION said:


> and YES... that is pretty much how I define social... basically everything outside of actual violence.


I am with you on that.  Your response to flying crane is a good description of social vs. nonsocial.



BLACK LION said:


> I really appreciate you asking me to help you understand my position rather than just trying to disect it and discard it as rubbish...
> 
> I respect that alot becuase it does not happen that way often.


Not a problem!  On a typed medium, it is important to know where other participants are coming from.

Daniel


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

I think if we make an effort to understand each other then we wont have unproductivity in threads.  It makes it difficult to explain your position when shots are already being taken. 
I know I dont always type my thoughts and such exactly how I can express them physically...but its the internet and no one can 
I can be confusing at times even though it makes perfect sense to me. 

My training in "grappling" never dealt with "breaks" or "pressure points" or "dividing muscle" or "tearing connective tissue/ligaments" or "sealing the breath/vein"(aside from a few chokes)... 
For the most part "grappling" dealt with throws, locks,takedowns,sweeps, shoots etc.... for the most part it was based on being  competitive and purely social in the sense that there was never an "ultimate end" other than win or lose...   not live or die...   

In the place I live and places I have lived competing to win was the last thing I needed...  I had good freinds and great fighters who died using competitive techniques in a situation that was not about win or lose. 

It was not until I endulged in other "combative" facets of what could be considered "grappling" like Chin Na and Jujutsu/Taijustsu that I began to gather a clear understanding of the differences.  I then turned all my attention to combative related principles most of which I found in Chin na /Ninjutsu / Taijustsu and thier many facets.  
I refined it even further using the wealth of martial and medical information to suit my needs in this day and age.  

I apologize for any confusion or if any felt I was being disrespectful.
Clear misundertanding.  

I appreciate everyones experience and expertise. 

Respectfully
Broderick


----------



## kaizasosei (May 1, 2009)

Grappling is certainly not a waste of time.  Both striking and grappling are equally important.  Often though, the grappling arts will defeat the striking arts because once one is off ones feet and decentered, strikes tend to lose their effectivity.  A good striker however can batter down a grappler that does not have adaquate defense and dominate with strikes alone.  However, at the very core of things, grappling and striking are not really different.  
We grapple with shopping carts, doors,grapple with stuff falling out of a packed trunk, grapple with just about everything we do with our hands.  Striking too contains principles contained in many of lifes' everyday actions.  Sortof like mr.miyagis teaching methods in the movie karate kid, it is actually true that many of the movements and principles contained in the martial arts are not exclusive and can be found in many other areas of life.

Both arts are equally deep, equally technical and equally dangerous.  To ignore one, would mean either concentrating on a certain sport alone, such as wrestling or boxing, or it would mean having an unrealistic attitude about selfdefense, not recognizing or realizing the abilities of an opponent is the greatest mistake of all time-which is more often than not, garanteed loss(coupled with a dose of shock).  Even a totally complete fighter can lose a match or real fight, but the more openings and weaknesses there are, the greater the chances become.  

The brief moments in which confrontations happen are often comparable to the game of paper,rock scisors-   grappling, standup(striking and antigrappling(pure strength or resiliant countergrappling).  Each can be defeated each defeats the other.  Then it seems to me to boil down to mindpower.  one time, you'll see someone really secure and win because of that security.  other times you'll see someone insecure and win because of that insecurity. Likewise for losing.  so it is not easy to know how to handle a given situation or given opponent. 

j


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> Pardon me, but by this definition, anything short of a berserker attack (suicide bombing, juramentado, etc.) has a social component. This is equally true even in a criminal assault. When a mugger pulls a knife and demands your money, there is an implied social contract, ie you submit and hand over your wallet and he will let you live. When a loan shark's thugs break your knee for not paying up, you can submit, and live (as a cripple) or fight and take your chances taking on the mob.
> 
> So I guess my confusion is over this "social" distinction. I don't see it quite as clear cut as you. ...more of a sliding scale, depending on the situation. And, in the world I live in, I wish I as better at grappling.


Actually, I thought that he was pretty spot on.  I think, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that he meant things that are wont to happen in recognized social settings:  

The out of hand drunk at a bar or a party.

a sanctioned sporting event, such as boxing or mma, where the opponents strive to overcome eachother within the context of the rules.  

A beligerant person in the check out line who may bristle and make threatening comments but will go their own way after they have paid for their goods.

These are examples of a social setting.  The examples you listed are not social by any means, even though they may have a component that one could potentially classify as social.

Daniel


----------



## blindsage (May 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I think if we make an effort to understand each other then we wont have unproductivity in threads. It makes it difficult to explain your position when shots are already being taken.
> I know I dont always type my thoughts and such exactly how I can express them physically...but its the internet and no one can
> I can be confusing at times even though it makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for explaining your position and experience.  Starting with some of this may avoid some of the confusion you seem to be running into.  Chin Na is grappling by most definitions (including mine), so is breaking, pressure point, muscle 'dividing', tearing, etc. as well as throws, locks, takedowns, sweeps, shoots etc.  Preferring some over others for what you consider effective survival methods, doesn't change what category they fall under.  But again, thanks for the clarification.

Respectfully,
Alek


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

I shouldnt have to explain my experince before providing my opinion... 
I am one of those people that does not put breaks and nerve attacks and such under the umbrella of "grappling"... but thats just my preference and we are all free within that realm...  Although most may relate breaks or pressure point attacks to grappling... I see it being contradictory based on my experience and training. But thats just me snd the way I process info and perform physical work.  I understand that in general this is the way it is. I am trying to get away from that. I am in the position that I individualize each in my training...  




If I may add that any sort of breaks or tears or anything of that nature is useless without striking first.


----------



## teekin (May 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I shouldnt have to explain my experince before providing my opinion...
> I am one of those people that does not put breaks and nerve attacks and such under the umbrella of "grappling"... but thats just my preference and we are all free within that realm...  Although most may relate breaks or pressure point attacks to grappling... I see it being contradictory based on my experience and training. But thats just me snd the way I process info and perform physical work.  I understand that in general this is the way it is. I am trying to get away from that. I am in the position that I individualize each in my training...
> 
> 
> ...


*

*Why?
lori


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> Pardon me, but by this definition, anything short of a berserker attack (suicide bombing, juramentado, etc.) has a social component. *Even a sociopath can fein being social in order to gut someone and allot of times it starts with asking for something they dont really want...like a cigarette or money or a ride. *
> This is equally true even in a criminal assault. When a mugger pulls a knife and demands your money, there is an implied social contract, ie you submit and hand over your wallet and he will let you live. *What about the many cases in which the victim complied and was still killed. This goes hand in hand with my statement above.* *Most often potential victims use social means in a clearly asocial situation.*When a loan shark's thugs break your knee for not paying up, you can submit, and live (as a cripple) or fight and take your chances taking on the mob.*Tje act of breaking the knee is not social even though everything that led up to that point may have been.* I don't get in fights. But once, a long time ago I did. Before it went to the ground, I was losing, but I had a clear shot at seriously messing the guy up. He got me in a "red-neck rasselin" style headlock. I slammed him back into a car and had a real good shot at his jewels. I also had a large screwdriver in my back pocket and could have stuck him in the gut, pumping it like a sewing machine. I chose not to... and, guess what? We ended up on the asphalt, _grappling_. Even in an all-out fight, there are social consequenses to escalating things to that level.*In a life and death situation there is no legal liabilites or self defense clauses... the winner lives and the loser dies... there is no sliding scale on the cost of life.  That is the difference. In a violent situation there is no "escalating" ...its already as serious as it gets.* Even war has some rules. You don't kill and torture peoples kids and families. Normally.*In war there are acceptable levels of casualties. Women and kids or "no value targets" become victims all the time. Not intentionally but its war. *
> * If someone wants to viscerate you with a blade and you take them out before they can get you, that is a far cry from tying them up and lighting them on fire and then molesting thier children....  *
> *Its not like after you take someone out you procede to defecate on his face or drag him from the back of a car....  *
> ...


 
Everything leading up to the actual point in which the injury is being effected is social.  The act of inflicting injury or trauma itself is devoid of anything social and falls into the realm of asocial violence.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]Why?
> lori


 
Because no one in thier right mind is going to give you thier body and let you break it without a struggle...   This has been my experience.  Abreak is a product of a strike and the same goes for nerve attacks , dividing muscle etc...    no one is going to give it to you...   you have to take it... you do that by putting them in a state of trauma that cannot be controlled... like the "spinal reflex"


----------



## blindsage (May 1, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> If I may add that any sort of breaks or tears or anything of that nature is useless without striking first.


 
I totally agree.  Although there are occasional situations in which a break is handed to you on a platter.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I totally agree. Although there are occasional situations in which a break is handed to you on a platter.


 
Yes. Gotta love those  


Also... A break allot of times or for the most part, IS a strike.


----------



## blindsage (May 1, 2009)

Yes, and I wondered if that's part of what you meant in the first place.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 1, 2009)

Indeed my freind


----------



## teekin (May 2, 2009)

I'm sort of in a Jujitsu/Judo frame of mind so strikes are very foreign to me ( I'm trying to get better) Breaks and tears are leverage and shearing forces applied at correct angles. Even my kicks need a shearing force applied correctly to be effective. 
 I have been hassled both going to and leaving my classes. Twice the persons in question didn't take "no" for an answer and got with the hands. Both times a standing armbar with threats to break it if they ever touched me again backed them down. Now they Gave me the arm, true.
lori


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 3, 2009)

Striking is a good way to take a person's _kuzushi_ or physical and mental balance, and I would likely use strikes to set up my throws or whatever, but there are other ways to get _kuzushi _such as using aiki movements or fiting into the spaces the attacker provides for you. Nonetheless,  I agree that it is totally necessary in a life and death or to a lesser degree, moderately violent, situation.


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> When I see the word grappling, I immediately make reference to styles and techniques like that in brazilian juijitsu(which I have trained in with a machado bros instructor) and yes I associate it with taking people down or standing up and "submitting" them or dominating them in that manner.
> 
> Now if one was to ask if "siezing" like that found in chin na was viable I would sing a completely different song... I believe in the siezing art and look at it as a definate less lethal solution. It focuses in different aspects though and IMO the more important ones FOR ME.
> 
> ...


 
I'm confused....maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying, but in this post, you seem to like the idea of Chin-na, yet in other posts, you come across as though joint locks, etc. are useless, in, as you call it, a non social situation.

Now, if you have trained BJJ, as you claim, I find it hard to believe that you've been unable to put any of the concepts of BJJ to use in a standing situation.


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> [/b]Why?
> lori


 


BLACK LION said:


> Because no one in thier right mind is going to give you thier body and let you break it without a struggle... This has been my experience. Abreak is a product of a strike and the same goes for nerve attacks , dividing muscle etc... no one is going to give it to you... you have to take it... you do that by putting them in a state of trauma that cannot be controlled... like the "spinal reflex"


 
I agree with BL on this point.  Someone grabs you, their attention is focused on that attack.  So of course, if you start to attempt a lock, its going to be pretty obvious as to what you're doing.  Now, preface that lock, with a kick to the shin, a distracting shot to the face, etc. and your odds of getting that lock just went up.


----------



## SensibleManiac (May 3, 2009)

I consider myself primarily a grappler but would not presuppose that I would take someone to the ground, as a matter of fact I would prefer to always finish them standing up but experience has taught me that this might not always be possible.

Any real martial artist would develop their skills around as complete a structure as possible.
Think about this carefully.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> I shouldnt have to explain my experince before providing my opinion...


 
You're right, you don't.  However, when someone says something, its usually helpful if something can be said to back it up.  If someone started a thread on knife defenses, which has been done on here, and I came on and commented on what I think may/may not work, and someone asked me to cite my training and didn't, its a safe bet that my reply and future ones, could be suspect.  However, I normally mention my FMA training to backup what I've posted.  

Someone asks about training background, whats the secret?  Given the nature of the 'net, I'd rather talk to someone with a solid background rather than someone who learned from a book or watched every UFC since day 1 and now thinks they're a MMA fighter themselves.  Not saying that you learned from a book, but you know what I mean.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> I consider myself primarily a grappler but would not presuppose that I would take someone to the ground, as a matter of fact I would prefer to always finish them standing up but experience has taught me that this might not always be possible.
> 
> Any real martial artist would develop their skills around as complete a structure as possible.
> Think about this carefully.


 
Great post!!  I especially agree with the last part.  I'm always amazed by folks who, when discussing grappling, make claims that they're never going to end up on the ground.  While we hope that we dont, I find it interesting how some can predict what will/will not happen.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> Great post!! I especially agree with the last part. I'm always amazed by folks who, when discussing grappling, make claims that they're never going to end up on the ground. While we hope that we dont, I find it interesting how some can predict what will/will not happen.


 
as far as I am concerned I should be able to end it regardless of what compromising situation I end up in...including but not limited to sitting on a toilet or standing at a urinal.   It does not concern me too where it may end up just what can be done to gain the advantage regardless of where or how it happens to be...


----------



## blindsage (May 4, 2009)

SensibleManiac said:


> I consider myself primarily a grappler but would not presuppose that I would take someone to the ground, as a matter of fact I would prefer to always finish them standing up but experience has taught me that this might not always be possible.
> 
> Any real martial artist would develop their skills around as complete a structure as possible.
> Think about this carefully.


 
I agree with the above as well, but there are a lot of BJJ style ground grapplers out there now who don't think they need much in the way of stand up technique, too. I like the idea of having an awareness of ground grappling, but truly being well rounded would mean you have a good understanding of striking (hands, feet, knees, elbows, body), distance closing (or creating), angles of attack, trapping, standing grappling (in all the variations we've discussed: locks, breaks, throws, pressure points, etc.), footwork, weapons (use, and defense), situational awareness, *and *ground work (I'm sure I left some things out), but most of the time people who say "You need to be well rounded as a martial artist" these days, are often strictly talking about ground grappling. If you aren't doing ground grappling you aren't well rounded, and if you are, with maybe a little bit of striking training, you're good to go. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems like this is the case in a lot of conversations, both irl and on the net.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> You're right, you don't. However, when someone says something, its usually helpful if something can be said to back it up. If someone started a thread on knife defenses, which has been done on here, and I came on and commented on what I think may/may not work, and someone asked me to cite my training and didn't, its a safe bet that my reply and future ones, could be suspect. However, I normally mention my FMA training to backup what I've posted.   *Clearly your preference to respond with your resume... It seems to happen more often to those who come from a different end of the spectrum, like myself and frankly I am tired of explaining myself.  Especially when the "formal training" I have come across has yet to even tip toe around what I have found outside of the conventional realm.  Its an internet forum...not an application process to provide security for some dignitary.   I do not make it a point EVER to openly ask or question someones experience or expertise despite what conflict of opinion may be... even if its clearly complete bullshido...*
> *If what I type makes sense regardless of the difference of opinion then how I obtained the knowledge and expertise really makes no difference ...   *
> 
> Someone asks about training background, whats the secret? Given the nature of the 'net, I'd rather talk to someone with a solid background rather than someone who learned from a book or watched every UFC since day 1 and now thinks they're a MMA fighter themselves. Not saying that you learned from a book, but you know what I mean.


*There is no secret... My background is study-training-practice and PAIN...  I let my actions speak louder than the letters I type...  Survival is the only way for me to guage my training... not what I have trained or who I have trained with along the way...   Survival is all that matters to me...  not the accolades or the long winded resumes of experience.... and certainly no the list of who I have trained with and what...   results that work are all I care for. *
*Sometimes its better to learn from someone who is NO ONE.   *

*Just to wet your whistle.  I started trainig traditional karate at five and went on to boxing and some other things... at 15/16 I started training JKD under a member of Tim Tacketts garage(Jeff Taylor)...this spawned into a "fight club" of sorts in which open challenges were accepted... I had the experience of facing a couple local "black belts" in a no rules kind of sparring...    I was challenged more than others becuase I was not part of a local well known and established studio or dojo...  thier mistake... *

*I have also trained with and am good frinds with the son of "SURACHAI SIRISUTE".... *  makes no difference but thats a tidbit...  I think you get the idea...


----------



## BLACK LION (May 4, 2009)

The training in bjj that I had as well the time is spent observing it never afforded me a real knowledge of the anatomy and its weakness as well as how to exploit it....   it was more of a rush to dominate the other person in hopes to submit them...  purely social...          never did it afford me the knowledge of breaking down the physioligical structure by weakness or injury...  Why??? I dont know...  it seems thats the focus these days is submission under social rules of conduct and engagement... 

I would rather seize a handful of pectorals while simultaneously siezing a handful of cheek meat topped with a polite finger in the eye in order to subdue someone who I didnt intend to seriously injure or put down for good.   rather than an arm bar or chicken wing or leg crank or what have you....      I did however learn some choking which was pretty much my bread while I was training. However allot of chokes are based on them wearing gi or some sort of thick shirt....


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 4, 2009)

BL,

When it comes to background information on training, many of us at MT like to know the experience of others because it lets us better judge how well informed a particular person is on martial arts.

Because this is the internet, we have a lot of run ins with people who try to soundlike they know what they are talking about, but really don't. So by knowing a person's training credentials we can better understand where they are coming from with their posts and why they may hold their particular opinions.

We at MT repsect people like MJS not because they are "posting resumes" as you put it, but because they are up front and honest about their training and offer insigths from their training that can help the rest of us with our training. For example, we had a recent discussion about knife defense a while back where his experience in FMA helped strengthen my own similar ideas about defense. By comparing our training backfrounds we can see how different MA from around the world can come up with similar ideas that lead towards principles that can help unlock the path towards mastery.

I try to listen equally to people who have trained for decades and to people who have just begun, but all in all being open and honest about one's training is helpful to understanding each other, our arts, and our personal journies on the warrior's path.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> as far as I am concerned I should be able to end it regardless of what compromising situation I end up in...including but not limited to sitting on a toilet or standing at a urinal. It does not concern me too where it may end up just what can be done to gain the advantage regardless of where or how it happens to be...


 
I agree, and that is my goal as well...to be as prepared as possible, and to be as well rounded as possible in the various ranges of fighting.  I was simply commenting on your apparent dislike for the grappling arts.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> *There is no secret... My background is study-training-practice and PAIN... I let my actions speak louder than the letters I type... Survival is the only way for me to guage my training... not what I have trained or who I have trained with along the way... Survival is all that matters to me... not the accolades or the long winded resumes of experience.... and certainly no the list of who I have trained with and what... results that work are all I care for. *
> *Sometimes its better to learn from someone who is NO ONE. *
> 
> *Just to wet your whistle. I started trainig traditional karate at five and went on to boxing and some other things... at 15/16 I started training JKD under a member of Tim Tacketts garage(Jeff Taylor)...this spawned into a "fight club" of sorts in which open challenges were accepted... I had the experience of facing a couple local "black belts" in a no rules kind of sparring... I was challenged more than others becuase I was not part of a local well known and established studio or dojo... thier mistake... *
> ...


 
Like I said dude, it was just a statement.  I think its safe to say that Im not the only one who was wondering about the training.  IMHO, I think its a perfectly normal question to ask, seeing that when someone makes a comment, such as "A" isn't effective or "B" isnt as good as "D", to back it up with something.  I mean, if someone got involved with a grappling thread, I think the person is going to have more weight behind what they say, if they can say that they have a solid background in a grappling art, rather than saying that their only background is rolling with some friends in the back yard, after watching a few Gracie instructional tapes.

To each his own though.  But thanks for the background info.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> The training in bjj that I had as well the time is spent observing it never afforded me a real knowledge of the anatomy and its weakness as well as how to exploit it.... it was more of a rush to dominate the other person in hopes to submit them... purely social... never did it afford me the knowledge of breaking down the physioligical structure by weakness or injury... Why??? I dont know... it seems thats the focus these days is submission under social rules of conduct and engagement...


 
So, basically, you never really got much out of it?  If thats the case, I can now understand why you have the views on it that you do.  IMO, I think you'd have got much more out of it, if you took the time to understand it better, but again, to each his own.



> I would rather seize a handful of pectorals while simultaneously siezing a handful of cheek meat topped with a polite finger in the eye in order to subdue someone who I didnt intend to seriously injure or put down for good. rather than an arm bar or chicken wing or leg crank or what have you.... I did however learn some choking which was pretty much my bread while I was training. However allot of chokes are based on them wearing gi or some sort of thick shirt....


 
Ok, I'm confused again....a finger in the eye, but you do this to someone who you didn't intend to serious injure?  Let me ask you this....here are 2 scenarios.  How would you deal with them.

1) Guy pulls a knife on you while you're at the ATM.  Demands your cash.  Whether or not you give it to him is optional, but its apparent that he's going to cause you harm with the knife.

2) Bum on the street stands in front of you and asks repeatedly for cash.  He never touches you, but stands in your way, blocking your path.


Personally, I think those can be dealt with differently, but if I was going to take a shot in the dark, I get the impression that you'd lay both guys out.


----------



## teekin (May 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> I agree with BL on this point.  Someone grabs you, their attention is focused on that attack.  So of course, if you start to attempt a lock, its going to be pretty obvious as to what you're doing.  Now, preface that lock, with a kick to the shin, a distracting shot to the face, etc. and your odds of getting that lock just went up.



Ahhhhh, Ok I see your point. I suppose if I was primarily a striker It would be natural for me to turn and strike. But as his arm is already extended, elbow locked, it's so easy to turn trap the arm and crank before he can react. They always grab from behind it seems. Perhaps a frontal attack would be different?
lori


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Ahhhhh, Ok I see your point. I suppose if I was primarily a striker It would be natural for me to turn and strike. But as his arm is already extended, elbow locked, it's so easy to turn trap the arm and crank before he can react. They always grab from behind it seems. Perhaps a frontal attack would be different?
> lori


 
Oh, you can strike if you'd like.  In other words, if you choose to not go for a lock, feel free to throw a strike to an open area.  Ex: someone grabs your arm with both hands, go ahead and fire away.   If you choose a lock, well, if you're quick enough, sure, you may be able to pin the hand and get the lock, but if not, I like to do something to take their mind off the initial attack, even just for a moment.  The strike doesnt have to be a power shot, as its main purpose is distraction, but it'll buy you time to get what you want. 

Depending on the grab, ie: bearhug from front or rear, choke from front or rear, your best options may be to just strike.  Although, an attack from the front does provide some other things to do. Ex: grabbing onto some skin on the side of the ribs/lat area, is a sure way to get a reaction from the person grabbing you.


----------



## teekin (May 5, 2009)

I think this is a new thread or at least a split but MJS I don't want a reaction other than him leaving me alone. I am elfin, a size 2, 45 kilos and just starting to put on decent muscle. I don't want to do anything to make the guy pissed off and fight, I want to startle him into thinking I'm a psychotic unstable lunatic who it's best to stay clear of. They guys are already pissy when I'm walking away from them, they are looking for a confontation. THe hand on the shoulder to stop me is my cue. I can step in and throw or turn, trap and jack.
lori


----------



## BLACK LION (May 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> So, basically, you never really got much out of it? If thats the case, I can now understand why you have the views on it that you do. IMO, I think you'd have got much more out of it, if you took the time to understand it better, but again, to each his own.
> *Its not that I didnt learn. Its the content of what I learned wasnt applicable to my reality outside the gym. this is where the term grappling gets misconstrued... in chin na or ninjutsu its much different in its orientation and execution and overall purpose as opposed to something like bjj.... the term "grappling" is similar to the term "streets" ... its overgeneralized to the point of confusion. *
> 
> *I am more specific in terms... *
> ...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> 1) Guy pulls a knife on you while you're at the ATM. Demands your cash. Whether or not you give it to him is optional, but its apparent that he's going to cause you harm with the knife.


Maintain distance and try to maneuver him into a more public area.  I will make a tactical retreat if possible.  If the guy continues to advance, I will do what I have to to shut him down.  Most likely take shots at his knees and lower legs.  I want to limit his mobility while maintaining my own.  If he lunges and exposes his weapon arm to being grabbed, I will do anything that I can to break it, dislocate it, or otherwise render it unusable.  

Against a knife wielding opponent, distance is your only friend.  Use strikes if you must to gain distance, but gain distance.  Strikes are your next option.  Grappling in a knife attack is, quite honestly, only a good option if you are attacked in an enclosed space and/or cannot gain any distance.



MJS said:


> 2) Bum on the street stands in front of you and asks repeatedly for cash. He never touches you, but stands in your way, blocking your path.


Broderick's approach was actually spot on.  Hold your hands in a neutral manner to indicate that you do not have anything to give (like I do with the family dog after I have given him his milkbone and he wants another), maintain confidence in your body language and go on past.



MJS said:


> Personally, I think those can be dealt with differently, but if I was going to take a shot in the dark, I get the impression that you'd lay both guys out.


Honestly, I do not get that impression from him.  

I do get the impression that if he is forced into acting that he will not hold back and will do whatever he must to survive.  But how many of us have claimed that we would do likewise in other threads?  I know that I have.

Much of our discussion on self defense, such as this one, presupposes that an attack has occurred or is imminent, or are couched in terms of, 'a guy attacks you like this, what do you do?' thus we are all answering accordingly.  

I find that when specific scenarios such as the ones you posted above are introduced, the choice of responses change.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> I think this is a new thread or at least a split but MJS I don't want a reaction other than him leaving me alone. I am elfin, a size 2, 45 kilos and just starting to put on decent muscle. I don't want to do anything to make the guy pissed off and fight, I want to startle him into thinking I'm a psychotic unstable lunatic who it's best to stay clear of. They guys are already pissy when I'm walking away from them, they are looking for a confontation. THe hand on the shoulder to stop me is my cue. I can step in and throw or turn, trap and jack.
> lori


 
Short of just apologizing and doing your best to get away, anything we do is probably going to get a reaction.  The shot you do before the lock pretty much needs to be done quick.  As for locks...they're not for everyone and they do take time to perfect, especially under pressure.  For me, I dont think that we should necessarily look for the lock, but wait until it comes to us.


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> MJS said:
> 
> 
> > So, basically, you never really got much out of it? If thats the case, I can now understand why you have the views on it that you do. IMO, I think you'd have got much more out of it, if you took the time to understand it better, but again, to each his own.
> ...


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Maintain distance and try to maneuver him into a more public area. I will make a tactical retreat if possible. If the guy continues to advance, I will do what I have to to shut him down. Most likely take shots at his knees and lower legs. I want to limit his mobility while maintaining my own. If he lunges and exposes his weapon arm to being grabbed, I will do anything that I can to break it, dislocate it, or otherwise render it unusable.
> 
> Against a knife wielding opponent, distance is your only friend. Use strikes if you must to gain distance, but gain distance. Strikes are your next option. Grappling in a knife attack is, quite honestly, only a good option if you are attacked in an enclosed space and/or cannot gain any distance.


 
Agreed.  Just for clarification, I dont want to give the impression of grappling with the blade, as in rolling on the ground, although, I do know people who train like that.  Yes, first and foremost, if possible, get the hell out of there.  If thats not an option, Im going to pick something up to use.  A rock, dirt, a chair, whatever I can get my hands on.  He raised the odds by pulling a blade, so I'm going to do the same.




> Broderick's approach was actually spot on. Hold your hands in a neutral manner to indicate that you do not have anything to give (like I do with the family dog after I have given him his milkbone and he wants another), maintain confidence in your body language and go on past.


 
Agreed.  As I've said many times, I'm an adovcate of talking first. 




> Honestly, I do not get that impression from him.


 
I'm pretty sure there are a few posts out there that gave me that impression, but hey, everyone reads things differently.   I could probably point out a few.  Now, again, this being the net, maybe its not clear as to whether or not those posts in question were dealing with armed or unarmed people.  IMO, as I say, we should judge accordingly, our actions. 





> 1) I do get the impression that if he is forced into acting that he will not hold back and will do whatever he must to survive. But how many of us have claimed that we would do likewise in other threads? I know that I have.
> 
> 2) Much of our discussion on self defense, such as this one, presupposes that an attack has occurred or is imminent, or are couched in terms of, 'a guy attacks you like this, what do you do?' thus we are all answering accordingly.
> 
> ...


 
1) I'd be lying if I said I didn't.  However, what I do always say, is that I like to assess the situation and respond accordingly.  Not every situation we face is going to require poking an eye, or breaking a limb.

2) Ok.

3) Agreed.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 5, 2009)

Lori.  
Is this a scenario in which someone is accosting you or harrassing you. Is it a situation where you feel threatened?  
Based on the info you gave, you stated the "hand on the shoulder" with elbows locked. Obvioulsy they are larger and stronger. 
I am an advocate of always assuming a neutral position with palms forward and fingers below the chin. This does incorporate the natural fighting stance but without "posturing".  The legs remain in the natural fighting stance while the arms and hands display neutrality. 

I am going to subtract the escape factor and just get to the meat. 

I would take the path of least resistance and by feining neutral and utilizing peripherals you should know where that is.   
You can rotate outside and project through or you can rotate inside and project through.  The nearest target is the groin.   If you rotate inside and take the groin you can get under thier base and dump them by pulling out the leg from behind the knee cap with the hand thats not clutching the crotch.  You would be simultaneously lifting up on the groin to take thier weight off thier feet while clutching the leg and pulling it into your hips.   he falls on his back and head and it took no real strength to put him there...just gravity and physics and reaction to spinal reflex.  
If you rotate outside the target is the same but you will end up behind them after the rotation and projection through them so dumping them will be a bit different but the concept remains the same.   

Keeping your base is paramount and taking thiers away is equally important.  Your base should consist of your inseam length.  Mine is 32" so there is a 32" space between my feet  in every movement while I am standing.   
Rotation, of course is a circular motion wether is 20 degrees or 360 degrees.  Rotation is paramount 
Projection is putting yourself through them by replacing your body with where they were.  

It may not make sense but its the best I can do without visual reference.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> Agreed. Just for clarification, I dont want to give the impression of grappling with the blade, as in rolling on the ground, although, I do know people who train like that. Yes, first and foremost, if possible, get the hell out of there. If thats not an option, Im going to pick something up to use. A rock, dirt, a chair, whatever I can get my hands on. He raised the odds by pulling a blade, so I'm going to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
To clear up any misconception I categorize situations in 3 ways. 
Or better I afford myself only 3 options.  

Escape/evasion= next option when negotiation fails. 

NEGOTIOATION= most situations fall under this option.

Ruthless Agression= when its the only option. 

Read my post about the man slapping his girlfriend and attempting to steal her purse. I agressively negotiated my terms which led to him walking the other direction. Even though he was physically assaulting her I gave him 1 option only...   he took it and then retracted and struck her again. I advanced further and instructed him to walk away or I would "put him down" ...  he complied and I made sure he walked away and didnt look back.  He deserved a beating but it was not right or just to do so despite his actions...     thats integrity.     I understand my capabilities so much that I pray that I dont need them...ever.    
Pray for peace...prepare for war.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 5, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> I'm sort of in a Jujitsu/Judo frame of mind so strikes are very foreign to me ( I'm trying to get better) Breaks and tears are leverage and shearing forces applied at correct angles. Even my kicks need a shearing force applied correctly to be effective.
> I have been hassled both going to and leaving my classes. Twice the persons in question didn't take "no" for an answer and got with the hands. Both times a standing armbar with threats to break it if they ever touched me again backed them down. Now they Gave me the arm, true.
> lori


Lori,

This may have been asked already, but are these students or people outside of the facility?

Daniel


----------



## jarrod (May 5, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Lori.
> Is this a scenario in which someone is accosting you or harrassing you. Is it a situation where you feel threatened?
> Based on the info you gave, you stated the "hand on the shoulder" with elbows locked. Obvioulsy they are larger and stronger.
> I am an advocate of always assuming a neutral position with palms forward and fingers below the chin. This does incorporate the natural fighting stance but without "posturing".  The legs remain in the natural fighting stance while the arms and hands display neutrality.
> ...



or you can just lock the bad guy's arm & break it if necessary.  but you know, whatever's easiest.

jf


----------



## teekin (May 5, 2009)

Jarrod, I bet you've taught this how many times?
 Both times this is *Outside* the schools. I often walk before and after class to loosen up my legs and knees as they have sustained bad injuries. There are bars near both schools. I get hit on, a lot. Most guys will take a polite "thanks but I am not interested" and be on their way. If however there is a pack and maybe one is a bit looped well **** seems to go downhill. The drunk one will decide to be a ******** and come after me as I continue to walk away. He will reach for me from behind and put his hand on my shoulder. His buddies are watching but only once have they come into play. So I'm being harrassed, yes but not afraid for my life. I don't want to start a fight with a drunk guy, I don't want to hurt him real bad, I just want to convince him to leave me alone. 
 Please be aware that if this happened IN either of the schools the guy would go head first through a wall after being beaten almost to death by the instructors. Talk about an *Absolute Zero *Tolerance policy.


----------



## jarrod (May 6, 2009)

i think i've read about it somewhere.  or maybe it was on youtube. 

jf


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 6, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> So I'm being harrassed, yes but not afraid for my life. I don't want to start a fight with a drunk guy,


Firstly, you are not starting anything.  Once they put their hand on your shoulder, they have legally initiated an attack.  Why not call the police and have him locked up?  He is outside of the bar and antagonizing people in a public place.  A night in the cooler might change his perspective.  Press charges and make him pay out in legal fees.  Maybe his legal expenses will cut into his drunk money.

Also, complaints to the establishment might not be the worst thing either.  If the same guy or group of guys have a habbit of getting out of hand, the establishment may cut them off.



Grendel308 said:


> I don't want to hurt him real bad, I just want to convince him to leave me alone.


Why not?  Would you feel differently if he was not a drunk?

I often see comments on this board and others about not wanting to hurt the drunk.  "You wouldn't want to use lethal force on a drunk at a party if he got violent.  You'd want to control him so that he isn't hurt."  Excuse me, but the violent drunk has as much consideration for the well being of others as the carjacker pointing a gun at you, and should be treated as the threat that he is.

In this case, the guy is _publicly_ drunken and has crossed a physical line.  He deserves no more consideration than a sober assailant. 

Less, truth be told:  He intentionally and purposefully dulled his senses and slowed his reflexes.  Then he initiated a physical confrontation.  Because he is drunk, he may continue the attack where a sober person might break it off.  Drunks need to be handled with the maximum force as quickly as possible.  

If he were on drugs, I guarantee that you would not express sentiments indicating not wanting to hurt him.  Unfortunately, alcohol is a drug, so the drunk needs to be treated with the same extreme prejudice as the guy jacked up on PCP.

Lest anyone think that I am antagonistic towards drinking, I am not.  I enjoy alcohol and consider it one of life's special pleasures.  But violent drunks do not deserve any special consideration.

Daniel


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 6, 2009)

I'd simply threaten to call the police for harassment, and hopefully that would scare him off. Although, I'm usually not approached by drunk guys looking for a date. Must be because of my robust manliness.

Anywho, If a threat of police action doesn't make them go away, then a red flag should go up and you should be prepared to do violence. That's my take on it anyway.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 6, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Anywho, If a threat of police action doesn't make them go away, then a red flag should go up and you should be prepared to do violence. That's my take on it anyway.


This is why I afford drunks less consideration than sober people; the same guy may back off with threat of police action when sober but blow it off when drunk.

Likewise, the same guy may take no for an answer when sober bur keep pressing the issue when drunk.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (May 6, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> To clear up any misconception I categorize situations in 3 ways.
> Or better I afford myself only 3 options.
> 
> Escape/evasion= next option when negotiation fails.
> ...


 
Well, thanks for the clarification.  As I said, I did not get the impression that you were for any other options, from some of your prior posts I've read.


----------



## BLACK LION (May 6, 2009)

^^^^ 
No problem. 

I feel that by understanding what it takes to take a life or cause debilitating injury, coupled with the will-intent and physical capability to do so....I am in the position to set the stage all the way up to that point and beyond.  I am in control becuase I know I will not compromise. If its negotiation = its my terms... if its evasion= its my terms...agression= my terms...  
Not every clash of flesh has to end in life long injury or death but I am in the position to guage that from minimum to maximum and act accordingly. 
By intimately understanding the physiological effects associated with areas of weakness I can guage the force and effort I put in.  If I am caught in the middle and I have to "subdue" somone or something I know what areas to to pop-press-grab or poke in order to get results without life long injury to the opposition.   A simple thumb in the armpit while seizing the trapezuis muscle or fingers tucked behind the clavicle while grabbing some neck meat are just some examples of non-lethal and non-debilitating....  hell a polite squeeze of the esophagus while giving a "wedgie" is very dear to me       If I want "compliance" I can get it... if I want to leave or want them to leave I can get that... if I want them completely shut off or non-functional I can get that... 


Thanks 
Broderick


----------



## dnovice (May 13, 2009)

I'm very late to this discussion. All I have to say is read "The Gracie Way" if you have any doubts about Grappling. One on one its great even if the person is way larger than you.


----------



## diamondbar1971 (May 14, 2009)

Different styles, who's is the best, worst, etc.  this has always been a topic that has been kicked to death...haven't we all (as martial artists) been taught respect for any and all styles...there are so many variables during any confrontation, skill level being the foremost thought comes to mind.. is there any true martial artist on this site that would not welcome any and all advantages available to be used to protect his or herself..i personally feel that if there is another tool/weapon that i can add to my aresenal then i welcome it with open arms...40 years ago we were taught to take care of the situation in the vertical position...one day this may not be the case..what will i do then..i have many years experience and i, as a lot of old timers, realize that change and or adaption is not a bad thing...parker--woo--tuiolosega, they all knew this, then.  there are discusions about why is learning all of the sets, or any sets, etc.  its to give everyone options, nothing is the same for everyone.  just because something is not liked, or understood does not make it a bad thing.. grappling is not the same as ground and pound, but i for one certainly want to be prepared, how about you.


----------



## chinto (May 17, 2009)

IS this topic still going??   why??


----------



## dnovice (May 17, 2009)

chinto said:


> IS this topic still going?? why??


 
Because you bumped it.


----------



## Domino (May 27, 2009)

Have to agree with Dnovice about "The Gracie Way" ... thats all the proof there is 

I think people look at grappling or floor work negatively because in a real situation, if someone*else* can kick your head off, they will.


----------

