What do you call an art that integrates striking and grappling?

[Dirty Dog]

If you think about it, pretty much all forms of humor have some degree of cruelty to them (other than the pun, and some would debate if that actually qualifies as humor...). Making fun of someone is cruel, but can you think of a single joke that doesn't make fun of someone?
But it's a matter of intent and (somewhat) degree. Example: My loss of an eye is something of a running joke with family and friends. As a result, one of my friends gave me a new shift knob for my car. It's an eyeball. Because of course it is. Another friend once gave me a stuffed One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater (for you young punks, that was the topic of a song when I was young...). We can laugh about these things because I'm not the least bit sensitive about the loss. But if I were, these exact same actions would be hurtful.
And that's the problem. Jokes are inherently hurtful (at least potentially) and the line isn't exactly static. So humor sometimes isn't, and there will always be someone offended by your joke.

On to the original topic...
I call a Martial Art that integrates striking and grappling a Martial Art. Because so far as I know, all arts do this. You will learn striking in Aikido. You'll learn grappling in TKD. Each art has a different focus, certainly, but you'll still learn both.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques

functional.


actual terminology if you wish to go down the route of dividing the two (as some people dont), hybrid. As its a mix of both the groups made. Mixed would be acceptable but then people conflate mixed to mean MMA MMA rather than a mixing of arts/styles.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques?

Like DD, I'd call it a martial art. Just about any functional martial art will include both striking and grappling and use one to set up the other. The exception would be martial sports where one or the other aspect is forbidden by the rules. (And even then you'd be surprised at how much can creep in. Most people don't realize how much skilled grappling can some into play in modern boxing or the hidden strikes that wrestlers can get away with.

For example, using an arm lock to tie up one of your opponent's arms and keep the other arm pointed away from you, so that you can strike with your free arm unimpeded.

I'd have to see a picture of what you're attempting to describe there. In general, arm locks don't make great control positions for landing strikes.

Here are some of the common ways that grappling and striking can be blended:

Striking to enter into range for a clinch or takedown
Striking to force an opponent to cover, opening an pathway for a clinch or takedown
Grabbing/pushing/pulling/pinning an opponent's guard to clear a pathway for strikes
Pulling/pushing/steering an opponent's body or head to position them as a target for strikes
Sweeping an opponent's feet to off-balance them and open them up for strikes
Punching an opponent to distract them from a foot sweep
Establishing a dominant clinch position to give an advantage in striking. Examples include single collar tie, double collar tie, single underhook, half-nelson, Russian two-on-one, front headlock, etc.
Establishing grips with impact - for example a snap-down into a headlock can be a clubbing forearm strike to the back of the neck, a single-leg entry can begin with a penetrating head-butt to the ribs to shift the opponent's weight, etc.
Threatening a takedown and then striking as the opponent defends the takedown
Taking an opponent down and striking them from standing while they are down
Taking an opponent down and establishing a dominant top control position for strikes - examples include mount, side mount, knee ride, kesa gatame.
On the ground, using strikes to force an opponent to change positions or open up opportunities for the striker to improve position
On the ground, using strikes to force an opponent to open up for a submission
On the ground, a few submissions can also double as control positions for strikes - i.e. the triangle choke

There are more possibilities, but the above are pretty common.

 

[skribs]

• Pulling/pushing/steering an opponent's body or head to position them as a target for strikes
• Sweeping an opponent's feet to off-balance them and open them up for strikes
• Establishing a dominant clinch position to give an advantage in striking. Examples include single collar tie, double collar tie, single underhook, half-nelson, Russian two-on-one, front headlock, etc.
• Establishing grips with impact - for example a snap-down into a headlock can be a clubbing forearm strike to the back of the neck, a single-leg entry can begin with a penetrating head-butt to the ribs to shift the opponent's weight, etc.
• Taking an opponent down and striking them from standing while they are down
• Taking an opponent down and establishing a dominant top control position for strikes - examples include mount, side mount, knee ride, kesa gatame.
• On the ground, a few submissions can also double as control positions for strikes - i.e. the triangle choke

The ones I quoted are the types of things I'm talking about.

A single overhook with a lock on the elbow can open up the ribs and torso, and push their other hand away, making it harder for them to counter. An armlock from the outside position can do an even better job.

I guess what we use a lot isn't so much an arm lock, but grabbing the arm and twisting them into a position that's easier to knee strike or downward elbow.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

A single overhook with a lock on the elbow can open up the ribs and torso, and push their other hand away, making it harder for them to counter. An armlock from the outside position can do an even better job.

The reason you don't see the single-overhook with pressure on the elbow used as a control position for striking very often in MMA is that when you turn to strike the opponent it relieves enough of the overhook pressure that the opponent is typically able to turn it into a dominant underhook which is more of an advantageous control position for them to strike. You can combine the overhook with head control using the other hand to set up knees. You'll see that sometimes.

The reason you don't see a full arm lock from an outside position used to set up kicks/knees is that standing armlocks are incredibly difficult to establish and even harder to maintain against a skilled fighter in a full-out fight. They're more appropriate for bouncers corralling a rowdy drunk or police officers controlling a non-compliant suspect.

 

[skribs]

The reason you don't see the single-overhook with pressure on the elbow used as a control position for striking very often in MMA is that when you turn to strike the opponent it relieves enough of the overhook pressure that the opponent is typically able to turn it into a dominant underhook which is more of an advantageous control position for them to strike. You can combine the overhook with head control using the other hand to set up knees. You'll see that sometimes.

The reason you don't see a full arm lock from an outside position used to set up kicks/knees is that standing armlocks are incredibly difficult to establish and even harder to maintain against a skilled fighter in a full-out fight. They're more appropriate for bouncers corralling a rowdy drunk or police officers controlling a non-compliant suspect.

There's a guy named Jesse Enkamp who calls himself "The Karate Nerd" on YouTube, he talks about how some of the techniques you're training aren't for fighting against a skilled fighter in the ring, but the typical fighter on the street.

 

[angelariz]

There is another discussion I want to have, but before I get to that discussion, I need some help with terminology. Or maybe opinions if there isn't an agreed-upon fact.

What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques? Not like MMA, which typically will either strike in order to set up a take-down, or when stalemated in the grapple will throw some punches for points. But arts which use grappling to isolate your opponent's limbs and then attack from an advantaged position?

For example, using an arm lock to tie up one of your opponent's arms and keep the other arm pointed away from you, so that you can strike with your free arm unimpeded.

I've seen this kind of thing in the self defense portion of a more traditional Taekwondo class, and I've seen it in Kung Fu, Wing Chun and various Karate tutorials. I've seen the concept in Hapkido and Aikido (although usually a strike isn't thrown from there).

It kind of also applies to the Muay-Thai clinch, although that is a slightly different application than the others on my mind.

But back to my question - is there a name for this concept? We have "striking" and "grappling", but what about the concept of using one to break your opponent's structure, with which to allow you to use the other?

Ju jutsu, Judo, Systema, and JKD all work on that idea

 

[Unkogami]

.....

What do you call it when an art mixes striking and grappling techniques? ...

Strappling?


Griking?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Strappling?


Griking?

Griping? I'm a BB in Gripedo.

 

[Koryuhoka]

Okinawan Karate.

 

[MadMartigan]

But back to my question - is there a name for this concept? We have "striking" and "grappling", but what about the concept of using one to break your opponent's structure, with which to allow you to use the other?

As the OP mentioned somewhere near the middle of this thread; his intended question was more about a name for the concept than a cheeky martial art name. (Though I really liked 'Griking' also)

I submit 'Clinch Fighting'.

For me, the issue is divided by the fighting range it occurs in. Striking, Clinch (standing), and Grappling (on the ground). I've found this (perhaps over-simplification) very useful for my own classes. Working on drills from a clinch position allows us to improve this (often transitional) stage between striking and ground fighting.

Of course, standing grappling is a commonly used term too. I just use it as more of a synonym for my preferred term of 'clinch fighting'.
This applies to the range it occurs in, and can involve anything from strictly grip fighting to grabbing the clothes and striking like a hockey fight. Whether the aim is to grab, off balance, then strike... or grab, off balance, and take down. Both happen within that same fighting range.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As the OP mentioned somewhere near the middle of this thread; his intended question was more about a name for the concept than a cheeky martial art name. (Though I really liked 'Griking' also)

I submit 'Clinch Fighting'.

For me, the issue is divided by the fighting range it occurs in. Striking, Clinch (standing), and Grappling (on the ground). I've found this (perhaps over-simplification) very useful for my own classes. Working on drills from a clinch position allows us to improve this (often transitional) stage between striking and ground fighting.

Of course, standing grappling is a commonly used term too. I just use it as more of a synonym for my preferred term of 'clinch fighting'.
This applies to the range it occurs in, and can involve anything from strictly grip fighting to grabbing the clothes and striking like a hockey fight. Whether the aim is to grab, off balance, then strike... or grab, off balance, and take down. Both happen within that same fighting range.

While my preferred term in that middle section is "standing grappling", I agree that it implies a separation that's not really there. I apply the same thought to ground grappling, which I usually refer to as "ground fighting" or "groundwork".

In any case, prefer the clarity of "clinch fighting" over "standing grappling". I might even talk myself into chaning my own usage.

 

[Buka]

We just call it rock and roll.

 

[isshinryuronin]

some of the techniques you're training aren't for fighting against a skilled fighter in the ring, but the typical fighter on the street.

This is true. And some techniques can be used against trained competitors. Also, there is a spectrum of skills found in street fighters. The typical Joe Thug is usually easy prey for a trained martial artist.

But there is an increasing number of nasty predators that have some sort of combat training, whether from you tube, practice with their cribmates, military service, prison, or formal training. These guys can be dangerous. Losing will likely mean a hospital stay. This kind of fight lasts seconds. TMA techniques as a whole may not be effective against them as this kind of threat was not common when TMA was developed.

However, the principles and skills of TMA (non-sport oriented) are good and can be effective, providing some of the techniques are modified to account for this new threat. Weapon and target selection, and power to take the opponent out by breaking something significant or render him unconscious become more important. Counters must be denied. Attacks normally done in 2 or 3 steps have to be done in 1 beat. Techniques explosively executed with minimum set up and chambering provides shock and awe.

Nonstop striking, a bit of grappling and more striking is key IMO.

 

[Steve]

We just call it rock and roll.

But what if it’s also a little bit country?

 

[Buka]

But what if it’s also a little bit country?

Then we need some cowbell!

 

[_Simon_]

Clackledockling.

Alright COME ON guys now we're just being SILLY.

 

[dvcochran]

Clackledockling.

Alright COME ON guys now we're just being SILLY.

Google does not recognize this.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Google does not recognize this.

If we refer to clackledockling enough here, searches for it will find this thread.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is true. And some techniques can be used against trained competitors. Also, there is a spectrum of skills found in street fighters. The typical Joe Thug is usually easy prey for a trained martial artist.

In my opinion, they are definitely useful against trained opponents. You are trained, they are trained. It comes down to who is better at what they do than the other guy. It might be you or it might be the other guy and it might depend on the day of the week and what mood you happen to be in. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that traditional martial arts were meant to be effective against an untrained opponent only. I do not buy it.

Now, there are top-level competitors who train more and train harder and may be in prime physical condition, against whom someone who does not train at that same level is unlikely to prevail. Of course that is true. But it boils down to who is better at what they do. I cannot fathom why the fact that a thug has some training suddenly makes him so much better than his intended victim who also has some training.

But there is an increasing number of nasty predators that have some sort of combat training, whether from you tube, practice with their cribmates, military service, prison, or formal training. These guys can be dangerous. Losing will likely mean a hospital stay. This kind of fight lasts seconds. TMA techniques as a whole may not be effective against them as this kind of threat was not common when TMA was developed.

I need to disagree with this notion as well. I suspect that some generations ago when many of the older systems were developed, the police (if they existed) were not readily accessible when you needed help, and were probably more of a tool of oppression for the benefit of the ruling class. You couldn’t just call 911 and get help quickly, and there wasn’t a well developed and fair criminal justice system to go after the bad guys. So the individual needed to be able to take care of himself if he was jumped on his way home at night from working in the fields, or his caravan was attacked by robbers on the highway, with nobody to help or witness. Violence always has existed, and often it can be extreme, particularly when there was nobody to witness or no aid to be had. The martial methods that grew up during such an era were meant to maim and kill quickly and decisively, because your life was literally on the line.

Of course modern violence follows this pattern too. Traditional fighting methods, highly effective a few generations ago, remain so today if they are trained appropriately.

However, the principles and skills of TMA (non-sport oriented) are good and can be effective, providing some of the techniques are modified to account for this new threat. Weapon and target selection, and power to take the opponent out by breaking something significant or render him unconscious become more important. Counters must be denied. Attacks normally done in 2 or 3 steps have to be done in 1 beat. Techniques explosively executed with minimum set up and chambering provides shock and awe.

Nonstop striking, a bit of grappling and more striking is key IMO.

I see this as being probably the same now as it was some generations ago. Violence continues on. Much of what worked then, still works just as well today. The caveat that I make is simply that a karate day-care class for toddlers isn’t the training needed to be effective. Training needs to be carried out on an adult level with a real understanding of how to use it, and I suspect that is often not done in many schools today. But that is not a failure of the system, rather it is a failure of the teachers and the folks practicing them.