Grappling is a Waste of time

[seasoned]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I think we should start a new thread.

 

[astrobiologist]

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]

I think we should start a new thread.

Go for it

Daniel

 

[seasoned]

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.

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

 

[Joab]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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.


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

(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]

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]

(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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Ronin74]

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.