# punching vs grappling.



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

And kind of my take on it.

Look doing both it is kind of a difficult to explain mechanism. From my experience all things being equal grappling at the same level of experience tends to win out over striking.

But why iis conjecture a bit. 

What I think is two aspects.

Grapplers tend to know what striking is about what the striker is trying to do and how to snuff it. Grappling works a bit better to neutralise striking. And striking does not in itself neutralise grappling as much.

Grappling also advances position all the time giving a greater advantage to the grappler as time goes on.

And I will try to break these down in other posts.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

Ok. The very simple dynamic of the double leg.

There is a range where striking is dangerous to a double leg attempt.

If your striking is effective in that you are doing damage. It makes that double leg attempt desperate and less effective. They have to wade through punches and kicks. And shoot in from further away.

But as soon as the striking is not effective either they block or clinch or close the gap. You are much less able to defend that takedown with strikes alone.

So you see this position where someone has grabbed your hips or your leg and you are trying to bang away at their head to loosen them off. This becomes a really low percentage response. Because it is not fundamentally preventing the takedown unless you can finish the fight right there.

They know if they can just wear shots and get you on your back the fight is theirs. And those less effective clinched up strikes will be returned with interest.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

Advancing position. I can strike a guy into a corner and still not guarantee a finish. Popping out and countering is a split second turn around. Because I may be in the advantage but he is not secured there.

But if I have a dominant clinch. I am more likely to get the takedown. Which means I am more likely to hit the ground in a dominant position. Progress to a better position and my ability to finish just becomes more and more certain.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 6, 2015)

Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.



How do you feel that  changes the dynamic?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 6, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Grappling vs a puncher only I agree. Vs a striker/grappler changes it all.


Sometime a "kick" can be a free gift to a good grappler's "single leg"? IMO, a grappler will have more concern about the "knock down head punch". As far as kicks, it doesn't bother a grappler that much.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 6, 2015)

The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training. 

That is the fatal flaw in all these idiotic debates:  the assumption that everything works equally well (or equally poorly) for everyone, and the assumption that everyone should desire to do the method that the debater champions.

My experience is that a method that focuses on grappling simply does not work for me.  I have no interest in it so I do not and will not train in it, so it will never work for me.  I train in something else and that works quite nicely for me.  I'll never be so arrogant as to tell you what you should do, based on my own personal preferences.  There are a few people here who ought to consider extending the same courtesy as well.

If the Lord Dictator of the World told me to train bjj and stop training Kung fu, or I would be put to death, I would take up swimming.  And I would practice my kung fu in the middle of the night in a room without windows.

Hey, if you want to feel smug about what you do, and that makes you feel like you are doing the best thing in the world, go right ahead.  Plenty of people here can see that nonsense for what it is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> From my experience all things being equal grappling at the same level of experience tends to win out over striking.


Agree! Lately I like to take the following test.

- If you can hit my head or body within your 1st 10 punches, you win that round.
- If I can get a successful clinch within your 1st 10 punches, I win that round.

Test this for 15 rounds and record the result. Since no knock/take down will be involved, the test can be safe and friendly.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 6, 2015)

Im going to disagree


UFC since the beginning to now is a good example.

Even back then there were strong grapplers who got wailed on and still lost.

Tuli, The guy hackney crotch shotted into submission

Several more,

Even now we see guys get knocked out going for subs or bettering position because a striker is just incessant.

Theres simply too many variables.

Whos more skilled?

Whos quicker? Your mid-long range strikes mean little if you cant connect any before the grappler moves in

Who has faster reaction speed? Your BB in BJJ means little if you get rocked or knocked out with the first punch or kick or kick.

What are the rules?

Whos the most relentless? Fighting like Hackney is gonna shut down grappler a lot quicker than being squeamish


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training.
> 
> That is the fatal flaw in all these idiotic debates:  the assumption that everything works equally well (or equally poorly) for everyone, and the assumption that everyone should desire to do the method that the debater champions.
> 
> ...



Which is all well and good. But does not change the mechanics of what happens in a grappling,striking engagement.

I have no issues with people playing the violin. But playing the violin for takedown defence will have its problems.

Oh but you can hit them with the violin huh?

You can also increase you ability to strike if you understand the mechanics of what is occurring when you do.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Im going to disagree
> 
> 
> UFC since the beginning to now is a good example.
> ...



Which is fine. But we have to individually achieve the Best result we can. Be mark hunt is not going to do us any good.


----------



## geezer (Jun 6, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> The method that works best is the one that captures ones interest and keeps them interested in the training.



True. My problem is that I'm interested in almost _everything._ If I were younger and had more time, I'd be taking BJJ right now in addition to my WC and Eskrima..

Now my problem with this debate is it assumes that it has to be an "either-or" choice of striking or grappling. Ideally you would use both!

However, if I had to say which is ultimately more effective, I'd say_ enhanced_ striking. Give a striker an enhancement, say a stout club for example and the equation changes. But if you've watched any Dog Brothers videos, you can see that grappling is still very important. So enhance the striking a bit more, and take away any and all protective gear and replace the club with a large sharp knife or even a sword, and striking becomes much more important.

Taking away the protective gear is essential however, since as any HEMA practitioner will point out, fully armored knights used a lot of grappling moves. Even the knight's sword was used as much as a lever as a chopper.  So let's, forget knives and swords, and just _use guns_. Striking your opponent with bullets from a distance eliminates grappling all-together. End of debate!


----------



## Danny T (Jun 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> How do you feel that  changes the dynamic?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime a "kick" can be a free gift to a good grappler's "single leg"? IMO, a grappler will have more concern about the "knock down head punch". As far as kicks, it doesn't bother a grappler that much.


My reference was of a grappler vs a striker/grappler not a striker vs a grappler.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Which is fine. But we have to individually achieve the Best result we can. Be mark hunt is not going to do us any good.



Thats  kind of my point here,

We've seen Grapplers lose to strikers, and strikers lose to grapplers.

Its not a matter of striking vs grappling, it depends on a culmination of variables, 

Having one side makes this debate a decent sized crapshoot


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 6, 2015)

There is another side effect that people may not notice here. Since closer distance will be to the grappler's favor, a grappler will like to move forward instead of to move backward. This kind of "move forward" spirit will not only help the combat "courage" issue, it also helps to develop a "move forward" and "willing to take risk" attitude through career/life development.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 6, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is another side effect that people may not notice here. Since closer distance will be to the grappler's favor, a grappler will like to move forward instead of move backward. This kind of "move forward" spirit will not only help the combat "courage" issue, it also help to develop a "move forward" and "willing to take risk" in career development.



Moving into the attack to counter is striking 101 as well


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 6, 2015)

Danny T said:


> My reference was of a grappler vs a striker/grappler not a striker vs a grappler.


Agree! A + B > A That's the true spirit of "cross training".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 6, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Moving into the attack to counter is striking 101 as well


But the grappling range is much closer than the striking range.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 6, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But the grappling range is much closer than the striking range.




Not neccesarily,

Its pretty common for boxers to clinch like that and work the body, in Karate/TKD schools youll see the bigger guys getting close to that range to throw body punches.

I mean proper Boxing Hooks and uppercuts are meant to but used when youre overly close like that and youre unable to throws straights


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Which is all well and good. But does not change the mechanics of what happens in a grappling,striking engagement.
> 
> I have no issues with people playing the violin. But playing the violin for takedown defence will have its problems.
> 
> ...


And this debate remains idiotic.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

geezer said:


> True. My problem is that I'm interested in almost _everything._ If I were younger and had more time, I'd be taking BJJ right now in addition to my WC and Eskrima..
> 
> Now my problem with this debate is it assumes that it has to be an "either-or" choice of striking or grappling. Ideally you would use both!
> 
> ...



Yeah. Here it is in the sense that I am trying to show how one exploits the weakness of the other.

For us we to a certain degree make a chess match of it.

And it is worth while knowing where you will be vulnerable and how to mitigate that.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Danny T said:


> My reference was of a grappler vs a striker/grappler not a striker vs a grappler.



Well yeah. But then they are both trying to game each other out there.

The striker/grappler will then be employing ideas like that as soon as striking becomes ineffective he wont press. 

Because that is the time for the grappler to take advantage and start that dominant position build up.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Not neccesarily,
> 
> Its pretty common for boxers to clinch like that and work the body, in Karate/TKD schools youll see the bigger guys getting close to that range to throw body punches.
> 
> I mean proper Boxing Hooks and uppercuts are meant to but used when youre overly close like that and youre unable to throws straights





Drose427 said:


> Moving into the attack to counter is striking 101 as well



But can be suicide against a better grappler.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 7, 2015)

Why is it either/or on these threads?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 7, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! A + B > A That's the true spirit of "cross training".


Unless either A or B is negative.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2015)

Ok, I had a student who was physically strong, could grapple and strike, could take down some of the big blokes in the gym, could submit them and their strikes were scarily good. However every month or so got beaten up badly by her husband, she's Fijian and that is what she is used to, makes no attempt to defend herself much to our frustration because when it comes down to it, it isn't the style nor the type of fighting, it's the will to fight, the determination and confidence, it is the fighter who matters not the style. You train and are confident you can defend yourself and have the will to do it, congratulations but don't pull other styles and their students down to try to prove yours is the best. As others have said, its a pointless argument.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 7, 2015)

In general, I would say grappling has the edge, simply because it has so many options available to it, whereas punching is a bit limited. You have joint locks, chokes, throws, takedowns, neck cranks, etc. There's entire systems built on just those concepts alone.

However, you should definitely make every attempt to have both great grappling and great striking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 7, 2015)

For every punch that you throw, if you always try to pull something back, your integration of punching and grappling is not that far away.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 7, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! A + B > A That's the true spirit of "cross training".


Cross training?
Thing about my training is that I train striking, standing grappling, ground grappling, and ground striking with and without weapons. It isn't cross training it is Training.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> But can be suicide against a better grappler.



Yeah, most grapplers are trained to perform throws or takedowns from the clinch. As a strike-oriented martial artist, your goal should be to stay out of the clinch.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, most grapplers are trained to perform throws or takedowns from the clinch. As a strike-oriented martial artist, your goal should be to stay out of the clinch.


A well trained traditional Muay Thai fighter will be also do some throws, sweeps and takedowns out of the clinch as well as know how to defend against them. (single and double leg - No but standing type yes) and Muay Thai is considered a strike oriented art. Clinch is a major part of traditional Muay Thai.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 7, 2015)

Danny T said:


> A well trained traditional Muay Thai fighter will be also do some throws, sweeps and takedowns out of the clinch as well as know how to defend against them. (single and double leg - No but standing type yes) and Muay Thai is considered a strike oriented art. Clinch is a major part of traditional Muay Thai.



Indeed it is, but in a clinch, I'd put my money on the grappler simply because its a position they're more used to, and they have far more tools they can utilize from that position.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> But can be suicide against a better grappler.



A grappler moving into range of a hook or uppercut can be suicide against a skilled striker as well


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> A grappler moving into range of a hook or uppercut can be suicide against a skilled striker as well



You are fundamentally safer inside from punches. 

If you wanted to throw big shots you wouldn't clinch.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You are fundamentally safer inside from punches.
> 
> If you wanted to throw big shots you wouldn't clinch.



This isnt quite true

Hooks and uppercuts are almost built for pre-clinch when the opponent is close, and during or post clinch if you've made a gapp. Thats the reason their an infighters dream. Because i can throw them point blank, whereas my opponent cant throw his jabs, straights, or crosses effectively.

A trained striker, especially boxers who are used to a clinch, are going to be used to someone trying to come inside to close distance, and can easily have the timing to dot them a few time long before they get in.

Again, knowing how to clinch means very little if you arent quick enough to do so without getting koe'd


----------



## Danny T (Jun 7, 2015)

And of course there are elbows and knees to be added to the mix.
And of course a good grappler will also have counters.
And a good striker/grappler will have good counters to that,
And..., 
Discussions like this will go on endlessly...


----------



## crazydiamond (Jun 7, 2015)

And don't forget a good biter...yes a good biter can make all the difference with grappler.


----------



## Buka (Jun 7, 2015)

I am a "this is what I do" junkie. Oh, sure, I'll sip, snort, shoot parts of other arts, but it all falls back to me and my "this is what I do" fix. 

Me thinks I'm not alone.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 7, 2015)

Danny T said:


> And of course there are elbows and knees to be added to the mix.
> And of course a good grappler will also have counters.
> And a good striker/grappler will have good counters to that,
> And...,
> Discussions like this will go on endlessly...


Ayup.  Debates like this are, as I've said, idiotic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 7, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> As a strike-oriented martial artist, your goal should be to stay out of the clinch.


IMO, it's very difficult to avoid "clinch".  In the following clip, his opponent threw a

- right punch, he used his left arm to block from inside out.
- left punch, he used his right arm to block from inside out.
- The clinch was then established within just 2 punches.






If your opponent doesn't punch at you, all you need is to

- move in your both arms between both of his arms, the clinch can be achieved the same way. If you move in fast, the clinch can be established within just 1 move.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> This isnt quite true
> 
> Hooks and uppercuts are almost built for pre-clinch when the opponent is close, and during or post clinch if you've made a gapp. Thats the reason their an infighters dream. Because i can throw them point blank, whereas my opponent cant throw his jabs, straights, or crosses effectively.
> 
> ...



So you solution to a grappler would be clinch up and try for upper cut ko,s?

And not to move create space and strike at range?


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So you solution to a grappler would be clinch up and try for upper cut ko,s?
> 
> And not to move create space and strike at range?



I wasmt talking about solutions or strategies whatsoever.

I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Ayup.  Debates like this are, as I've said, idiotic.



There are no idiotic debates only idiotic posters.

The reason we would have this debate is because people do counter striking with grappling, grappling with striking and combinations of both.

And to properly get the most advantage out of your system you need to know where it is strongest and where you are being lead intro a trap.

So then you may avoid ideas like being locked in a clinch on the grounds that it is still safe because you can throw ko uppercuts or Thai grapple.

This way you don't have to have such a massive skill advantage.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I wasmt talking about solutions or strategies whatsoever.
> 
> I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.



Significantly less effective than take downs though.

It is a pretty desperate defence.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Significantly less effective than take downs though.
> 
> It is a pretty desperate defence.



you can say that

But theres an entire style of boxing for close range striking, marciano fought out of a lot of clinches doing that/

in UFC people have stopped takedowns just from striking. Hackey did it regularly, gordeau shut down tulis clinching at a major size/strength disadvantage.

This debate youve started  is decided on a myriad of other variables. Striking vs grappling is a very minor one

it just isnt that cut and dry


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> you can say that
> 
> But theres an entire style of boxing for close range striking, marciano fought out of a lot of clinches doing that/
> 
> ...



Ok. Did they shut down take downs using Thai grapples,elbows,knees,ko uppercuts and boxing clinches?

Did they shut down these attempts by actively engaging in clinches.

Is all of this actively playing into the hands of a grappler?

And yes it is a variable debate. This is just one aspect of a whole bunch of stuff.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 8, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> In general, I would say grappling has the edge, simply because it has so many options available to it, whereas punching is a bit limited.


Punching, by itself is limited, you have; vertical punch, reverse punch, jab, uppercut, upset punch, turning punch, hook punch, downward punch, U-shaped punch, jumping punch, twin fist punch, twin upset punch, horizontal punches, over the shoulder punch, and those are just the punches. There are a great many options for strikes available including various types of knife hand, backfist, reverse knifehand, hammerfist, elbow, headbutt and tets not forget the kicks.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> There are no idiotic debates only idiotic posters.
> 
> The reason we would have this debate is because people do counter striking with grappling, grappling with striking and combinations of both.
> 
> ...


Yes there are idiotic posters, on that we agree.  This debate is done over and over and over, by the same people.  It is idiotic.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Did they shut down take downs using Thai grapples,elbows,knees,ko uppercuts and boxing clinches?
> 
> Did they shut down these attempts by actively engaging in clinches.
> 
> ...



In MMA? Yes they did

Boxers have used them to fight from or out of the clinch

A striker probably isnt going to actively clinch

Yes and no, again whose hands it plays into depends on the attributes of the two people. Early UFCS are best to see this

Im glad we agree, but I also wanna clarify (because its starting to look that way) Im not choosing a side or trying to say Striking is preferable, simply that when you go pure striking vs grappling. Its decided by a million things other than striking vs grappling


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, I had a student who was physically strong, could grapple and strike, could take down some of the big blokes in the gym, could submit them and their strikes were scarily good. However every month or so got beaten up badly by her husband, she's Fijian and that is what she is used to, makes no attempt to defend herself much to our frustration because when it comes down to it, it isn't the style nor the type of fighting, it's the will to fight, the determination and confidence, it is the fighter who matters not the style. You train and are confident you can defend yourself and have the will to do it, congratulations but don't pull other styles and their students down to try to prove yours is the best. As others have said, its a pointless argument.


Off topic but I hope she got help and her husband is being held accountable for beating her up.   That's terrible 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 8, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I was correcting your assertion that strikes are ineffective at close range when those strikes are specifically for close range.


The purpose of "clinch" is to take your opponent's striking ability away. A successful clinch will give you very little room to punch.








The  "head lock", "double under hook", "double over hooks", and "double arm wrap" are all good examples.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes there are idiotic posters, on that we agree.  This debate is done over and over and over, by the same people.  It is idiotic.



Good. It is a debate That needs to be done over and over.

 Idiotic would be ignoring this dynamic because thry have no interest. And then posting 3 times in a thread about a subject they are ignoring about how hard they are ignoring it.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> In MMA? Yes they did
> 
> Boxers have used them to fight from or out of the clinch
> 
> ...



I am not choosing a side either. I am trying to create a technical discussion on a dynamic.


----------



## Drose427 (Jun 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I am not choosing a side either. I am trying to create a technical discussion on a dynamic.



I didnt mean to imply you were! 

If I came off that way im sorry, Just realized I was starting to come off as "strioking is better" when my point was just there are too many other variables


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I didnt mean to imply you were!
> 
> If I came off that way im sorry, Just realized I was starting to come off as "strioking is better" when my point was just there are too many other variables



Yeah sort of. We can have a striking grappling debate that focuses on the advantages disadvantages and remove some of the variables that are not going to help.

So a k1 kickboxer could probably beat a bjj white belt at any given range. And the answer there is be awesome at what you do.

A massively strong hugely tenacious guy could win on that factor alone.

Yes a puncher always has a chance of a flash ko.

But for the rest of us we have to work with what we have.

And so with things like the clinch. The wrestler is gaining position. The puncher is not so much. He might get an upper cut. But it is about the same as getting a ko from distance. 

So as a striker I would mostly treat the clinch as poison. Unless I am laying waste to the guy. But if it becomes a 50 50 the grappler has the advantage.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2015)

And being comfortable in a clinch can be like being comfortable in the guard against a striker.

It is one of those positions that gets turned around on you very quickly.


----------



## Buka (Jun 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah sort of. We can have a striking grappling debate that focuses on the advantages disadvantages and remove some of the variables that are not going to help.
> 
> So a k1 kickboxer could probably beat a bjj white belt at any given range. And the answer there is be awesome at what you do.
> 
> ...


_
"But for the rest of us we have to work with what we have."_

Ain't that the truth, brother_._


----------



## kuniggety (Jun 8, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The  "head lock", "double under hook", "double over hooks", and "double arm wrap" are all good examples.


 All are good but a "head lock", IMO, is a bad move. Even if I have the potential to grab someone in a head lock, I don't, because there is way too much potential for a grappler to use it against you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 9, 2015)

kuniggety said:


> All are good but a "head lock", IMO, is a bad move. Even if I have the potential to grab someone in a head lock, I don't, because there is way too much potential for a grappler to use it against you.


True!

There are at least 20 different ways to counter a "head lock". But since the human neck are weak compare to the rest part of the body. Also if you can control your opponent's head, the rest of his body will follow, the "head lock" do have great advantage. When you apply a "head lock" on your opponent, if you have wrapped his leading arm, you will only have to deal with his back arm. If you can use your "head lock" to "crash" your opponent's structure, his free back arm won't be able to do much to you.

The "arm wrap + under hook (or over hook)" will not give your opponent any free arm. But since you are dealing with arm vs. arm, you don't have any advantage (since your opponent's arms can be as strong as yours).











Of course you will need to develop your "strong head lock" before you use it.






Also when you apply "head lock" on your opponent, if you can "spring" one of his leg back, you can take away most of his counters.


----------



## Zero (Jun 9, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And kind of my take on it.
> 
> Look doing both it is kind of a difficult to explain mechanism. From my experience all things being equal grappling at the same level of experience tends to win out over striking.
> 
> ...



Hi Dropbear, I wasn't quite sure on the context?  Even having gone through all the posts, are you talking about sport, ie competition, mma tournaments such as UFC or no rules street fighting or are you talking about self defence, or is it all of the above?

I think it is competition mma you are talking about, given you are saying "grappler" vs "striker" but wasn't sure...


----------



## Buka (Jun 10, 2015)

"Fighting in his kitchen." An old term used for that range of standing grappling. I've always found that all Martial Artists train that range specific to what their art, or specific dojo, does at that range. And it's usually done in two different ways. The first way is obvious - what to do in general self defense. The second - how someone else here, in our art, can counter that or turn it against me (what to watch out for) That's what we all tend to do, train it in our milieu and see who can stick it up our keesters.

If we watch a video of OTHER people depicting this range - the first thing that jumps into our heads is what we would do, what the obvious weaknesses we see as it pertains to our art, what we're used to, what we know to be true in _our_ experience and how we would just stick it up theirs because we do _this_.
I think if there was only one way, we'd all be doing it. I sure as hell would. 

Such is life in the kitchen.


----------



## geezer (Jun 15, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think if there was only one way, we'd all be doing it. I sure as hell would.



Sometimes there _is_ only one really good way to do things. Like driving with your _eyes open_. I usually do that. 

But with other things, like MA, you have to _consider the individual_. For example half a century ago, my older brother was a good wrestler. Took state (way back around '66). And our coach, Tony Russo, was great... he'd been on the Olympic team till he was injured. They both used to tell me that if all other factors were equal, the more aggressive, technically offensive wrestler was statistically most likely to win. In other words, the guy that initiates (shoots, etc.) wins over the guy that counters. The high school coach where I work now tells me that 50 years later that's _still _a fact.

Yet I, _personally,_ was more successful letting the other guy shoot, then countering. I was a different build, temperament, and had different skills than my brother. The same is true in striking arts, like boxing. Some are infighters, others hang back and counterpunch, and so on. Ultimately, we are all different, and regardless of what _statistically_ works best for the mythical "average" athlete, we have to find what works for each of us.

In my WC group, I've met guys that have so little ability and interest in grappling that if we do a grappling unit where we invite wrestlers to work with us, they will simply not show up to class. One guy got so upset about going to the ground that he quit. Others (like me) love it. ..Even as old as I am, and often getting my butt kicked. On the other hand, those guys that hate it are going to have to learn different, possibly less reliable ways to defend against grappling, because that's all they've got.  I can accept that. Just another type of_ diversity_.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2015)

geezer said:


> Sometimes there _is_ only one really good way to do things. Like driving with your _eyes open_. I usually do that.
> 
> But with other things, like MA, you have to _consider the individual_. For example half a century ago, my older brother was a good wrestler. Took state (way back around '66). And our coach, Tony Russo, was great... he'd been on the Olympic team till he was injured. They both used to tell me that if all other factors were equal, the more aggressive, technically offensive wrestler was statistically most likely to win. In other words, the guy that initiates (shoots, etc.) wins over the guy that counters. The high school coach where I work now tells me that 50 years later that's _still _a fact.
> 
> ...



The issue you may come across is you begin trying to reinvent the wheel a bit. And it can make you a bit goober.

Sometimes success is not a good indicator. If I did tkd then did kickboxing I would be more successful with the tkd method at first because it is more natural. This would be regardless of how more effective the kickboxing might be.

It is kind of a you have to know the rules before you break them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 15, 2015)

geezer said:


> In my WC group, I've met guys that have so little ability and interest in grappling ...Just another type of_ diversity_.


This kind of attitude also exist in the grappling world as well. In my Chinese wrestling group, I also have guys who don't like their head to be punched. I have to help them to develop some "anti-striking" ability too. How well does this "anti-striking" work? It's still under serious testing.



drop bear said:


> The issue you may come across is you begin trying to reinvent the wheel a bit.


This may not apply to my situation. As far as I know, nobody before me has ever tried to use the "rhino guard" to deal with head punch yet.

IMO, the "anti-striking" is a much easier task than the "anti-grappling".


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This may not apply to my situation. As far as I know, nobody before me has ever tried to use the "rhino guard" to deal with head punch yet.
> 
> IMO, the "anti-striking" is a much easier task than the "anti-grappling".



And I have yet to put you in a cage and test that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 15, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And I have yet to put you in a cage and test that.


It will be tested in the Sanda/Sanshou environment and that's for sure.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It will be tested in the Sanda/Sanshou environment and that's for sure.



Yeah see how you go. I don't like it. But unless I have had a go at it I cant for sure say.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 15, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah see how you go. I don't like it. But unless I have had a go at it I cant for sure say.


I will not use it to block punches. I'll use it to

- protect my head as "shield",
- use my arms as "wedge",
- move into my opponent in fast speed,
- penetrate my arms between his arms (this is the most important part),
- wrap my arms around his head and leading arm, and then
- take him down.

In other words, I'll use it in "offense" and not use it in "defense". The whole "rhino guard" may last for only 1 second. Of course, if my opponent can move back faster than my advance, my attack will fail. The best opportunity to do this is when my opponent is moving toward me. This way, he moves in and I move in too, I may only have to deal with 1 punch or 2 punches, during that short period of time, either my opponent knocks me down, or my clinch succeed and the grappling game will start after that.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I will not use it to block punches. I'll use it to
> 
> - protect my head as "shield",
> - use my arms as "wedge",
> ...



To close that gap move backwards which will bring the other guy forwards. Then do your rhino guard thing.


----------



## RowdyAz (Jun 21, 2015)

More Street fights have been finished by KO than tapout. In a gym with controlled sparring the grappler has a chance though for sure.  The quickest escapes are done with illegal tactics which can't be done in the gym.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

RowdyAz said:


> More Street fights have been finished by KO than tapout. In a gym with controlled sparring the grappler has a chance though for sure.  The quickest escapes are done with illegal tactics which can't be done in the gym.



A thug grappler isn't going to "Tap you out". They're going to get you in an inferior position, and then KO you by punching you in the face. Only nice grapplers go for tapouts.


----------



## RowdyAz (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> A thug grappler isn't going to "Tap you out". They're going to get you in an inferior position, and then KO you by punching you in the face. Only nice grapplers go for tapouts.


On the rare occasion it's 1on1 that might happen for sure. Anytime you go to ground you run the risk of people jumping in (outside the gym)eyes getting gouged etc. Hence training is done on mats not concrete


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

RowdyAz said:


> On the rare occasion it's 1on1 that might happen for sure. Anytime you go to ground you run the risk of people jumping in (outside the gym)eyes getting gouged etc. Hence training is done on mats not concrete



You run that risk standing as well.

The mats are so you can be thrown without too much injury. Throws are more effective on concrete generally.


----------



## RowdyAz (Jun 22, 2015)

Matts are for rolling too, which isn't too effective on concrete generally.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

RowdyAz said:


> On the rare occasion it's 1on1 that might happen for sure. Anytime you go to ground you run the risk of people jumping in (outside the gym)eyes getting gouged etc.



That's fighting period, not just "ground" fighting. I was talking about the bad guy taking YOU to the ground and smacking your head into the pavement. That's more likely to happen than him trying to tap you out. Nice grapplers would pin or tap you out. The guy trying to kill you is going to throw you down and attempt a ground and pound.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I was talking about the bad guy taking YOU to the ground and ...


Do you think one should train not to be taken down by the bad guy first? IMO, the "anti-throwing - not to be taken down" skill is more important in the street situation. Have you ever heard about a 4th degree Judo black belt been taken down by someone who has no throwing (take down) skill? I have never heard about that myself.

One guy in NYC made a public claim that if anybody could take him down just once, he would give that guy a black belt. In the past 30 years, nobody had ever received a black belt from him that way. IMO, if you are good, it will be very difficult for anybody to take you down.

One thing that I have noticed is that, since the ground game is getting popular in MMA, people just don't train "anti-throwing" as much as they did in the past.

Do you agree?


----------



## RowdyAz (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> That's fighting period, not just "ground" fighting. I was talking about the bad guy taking YOU to the ground and smacking your head into the pavement. That's more likely to happen than him trying to tap you out. Nice grapplers would pin or tap you out. The guy trying to kill you is going to throw you down and attempt a ground and pound.


Not ME my stand ups too GOOD.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

RowdyAz said:


> Matts are for rolling too, which isn't too effective on concrete generally.



Rolling is very effective on concrete. If you compare it to going splat face.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think one should train not to be taken down by the bad guy first? IMO, the "anti-throwing - not to be taken down" skill is more important in the street situation. Have you ever heard about a 4th degree Judo black belt been taken down by someone who has no throwing (take down) skill? I have never heard about that myself.
> 
> One guy in NYC made a public claim that if anybody could take him down just once, he would give that guy a black belt. In the past 30 years, nobody had ever received a black belt from him that way. IMO, if you are good, it will be very difficult for anybody to take you down.
> 
> ...



No. Mma has a lot of anti throwing.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you think one should train not to be taken down by the bad guy first? IMO, the "anti-throwing - not to be taken down" skill is more important in the street situation. Have you ever heard about a 4th degree Judo black belt been taken down by someone who has no throwing (take down) skill? I have never heard about that myself.



Ronda Rousey has a 4th degree black belt in Judo, and she's been taken down and thrown several times. No matter how well trained you are, gravity effects us all equally.



> One thing that I have noticed is that, since the ground game is getting popular in MMA, people just don't train "anti-throwing" as much as they did in the past.
> 
> Do you agree?



Well MMA tends to favor wrestling over Judo, so anti-throwing isn't really necessary. They have takedown defense instead.


----------

