Grappling is a Waste of time

[geezer]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

Why?
lori

 

[BLACK LION]

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....

It all boils down to individual integrity.

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.

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]

[/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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BLACK LION]

Indeed my freind

 

[teekin]

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]

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]

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.

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]

[/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"

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]

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]

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.