What does it mean to be well-rounded and why would I want that?

[Flying Crane]

Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.

In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.



Yep. For most self-defense purposes you don't need to be able to out-grapple a specialist. I'd say a good benchmark would be this: if you are tackled to the ground by a larger, stronger opponent who has some decent natural grappling instincts or a little experience doing backyard wrestling with his friends, and this guy gets mounted on you and tries to punch your face in, can you protect yourself and get back to your feet? If so, you have enough ground fighting expertise for the vast majority of self-defense situations.

Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience. We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.

I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money. I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small. We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience. We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.

I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money. I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small. We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.

Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small. In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience.

Yep, that definitely helps. On the other hand, a lot of martial arts students didn't have that background so they've got some catching up to do even against an untrained grappler.

We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.

I think it's a good idea to start from the assumption that the attacker is bigger and stronger and (by virtue of luck or surprise) has the superior position. That puts the defender behind, so it's good to have some extra skill and knowledge to compensate.

I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money. I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small. We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.

Yeah, unless we're professional fighters we're unlikely to be defending against the arm-bars of a Royce Gracie or the punches of a Floyd Mayweather. Still, it's good to have efficient counters for the most common real world attacks. For grappling that would mean having solid defenses for tackles, headlocks, someone mounted on you punching, someone standing over you kicking or punching, etc.

Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small. In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.

Depends. For a middle-class male who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general, you're right.

However, even a middle-class female who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, isn't involved in a high-risk profession, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general has a non-trivial chance of being a target of sexual assault or domestic violence at some point in her life. Being held down by a larger, stronger attacker is a not-uncommon feature of such assaults.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yep, that definitely helps. On the other hand, a lot of martial arts students didn't have that background so they've got some catching up to do even against an untrained grappler.



I think it's a good idea to start from the assumption that the attacker is bigger and stronger and (by virtue of luck or surprise) has the superior position. That puts the defender behind, so it's good to have some extra skill and knowledge to compensate.



Yeah, unless we're professional fighters we're unlikely to be defending against the arm-bars of a Royce Gracie or the punches of a Floyd Mayweather. Still, it's good to have efficient counters for the most common real world attacks. For grappling that would mean having solid defenses for tackles, headlocks, someone mounted on you punching, someone standing over you kicking or punching, etc.



Depends. For a middle-class male who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general, you're right.

However, even a middle-class female who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, isn't involved in a high-risk profession, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general has a non-trivial chance of being a target of sexual assault or domestic violence at some point in her life. Being held down by a larger, stronger attacker is a not-uncommon feature of such assaults.

I think it really boils down to what is reasonable, and that differs from person to person.

For most people, an attack is statistically unlikely. Yes, danger is out there, but for most people it isn't hiding around every corner. Spending ones life obsessively training for an attack that is unlikely to come, can become a waste of a life. Training should have a place in ones life, if one is so inclined. But it shouldn't take over. There are other things that are important, to have a rich life worth living.

When I was young I used to fantasize about what I would do if I won the lottery. I thought I would spend all of my life training, in everything I could. In hindsight, I find that thought downright depressing, to be so one-demensional and quite possibly alone in your little bubble.

 

[Steve]

However, even a middle-class female who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, isn't involved in a high-risk profession, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general has a non-trivial chance of being a target of sexual assault or domestic violence at some point in her life. Being held down by a larger, stronger attacker is a not-uncommon feature of such assaults.

True. I had in mind the random attack situation. You're absolutely right regarding women, and a year or so of BJJ (or equivalent) is a terrific idea.

However, it's worth noting that the issue of female self defense is a much, much bigger topic, and grappling skills is just a sliver of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again yes that make sense also.. your personal arsenal necessitate you schooling your self outside of core NGA syllabus yes.. that is all cool..

Though can I ask you please because you are persuaded to seek additions to your core NGA then there is not implication in this that NGA is insufficient as title of this thread to be a well-rounded system that it require out side agency to fix gaps it cannot it self fix??? thank you again x

Yes, as I received it, I saw an insufficiency in NGA. I'm not aware of anyone in NGA who was at that time teaching more extensive or effective ground work (there are some doing so now). The principles were all there, but not the right techniques. By bringing in a few techniques from outside and adapting them to NGA, it now has a reasonable set of basic ground escapes.

 

[drop bear]

The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.

The problem is that anyone can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.

If you argue that you are training for self-defense and are unlikely to encounter an attack from an expert wrestler, you should consider the additional variables which can make going to the ground more likely in a street scenario. How about being blind-side tackled by a much larger assailant on a slippery or uneven surface?

If you bet everything on never being taken down, then you are in a boat load of trouble if you ever end up on the ground with a larger attacker on top of you. I'm not saying everybody should become expert at fighting while on the ground, but the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.

Mark hunt, brock lesner. Mark should have trained escapes from the deck. He was always going to be taken down.

It is one thing about the wrestling vs BJJ for strikers. If you want to short cut a bit. Dont bother with submissions you focus on escapes.

 

[drop bear]

I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist. That won't happen. If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.

Here is where it gets tricky. When you say specialist do you mean takedowns, submissions or escapes?

 

[drop bear]

Maybe. My throws are actually pretty mediocre overall, although I have occasional days when things just click.

Do you judo much for MMA though?

I just double leg, single leg.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience. We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.

I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money. I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small. We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.

Ok. Here is where it gets even more complicated. For me, for MMA. We don't do complicated skills. so for example to be a top specialist grappler you engage in an arms race of techniques.

So for example. Here is jason scully showing 57 guard passes.

I do one and it is called punching.

(ok. I have about 3 but the same principle.)

No MMA fighter is going to need 57 guard passes. It can very easily lead you down a rabbit hole.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Do you judo much for MMA though?

I just double leg, single leg.

My wrestling is probably a bit worse than my judo, although both need work.

 

[drop bear]

My wrestling is probably a bit worse than my judo, although both need work.

Yeah ditto.

My issue is it is really hard to be good at. And sucking at wrestling really sucks.

This is why strikers tend not to want to learn wrestling.

 

[JR 137]

That's a valid point. There is definitely some danger that we get to thinking we know more than we do. Hell, I see this regularly with instructors talking about how to counter another style and clearly (to someone who knows the style in question), they are proposing something that would not work. Some of the value in continually exposing ourselves to people in other styles is that they show us on a regular basis how little we know. I've had enough experience with Ueshiba's Aikido, for instance, to know that there's much of their approach I actually don't understand. I've seen people in NGA with little exposure to that art confidently make claims about it that I know to be inaccurate - Dunning-Kruger, indeed. So, exposure to other styles and practitioners is one of the ways to protect against D-K. You see this in BJJ, and it's one of the things you recommend about the art, in general. It's something Drop Bear sees in MMA, and he similarly recommends it. People interact between schools/gyms, so if you're not as good as you think you are, someone will help you improve your awareness pretty soon. This is the same thing we're talking about with interaction between styles.

And I will argue that what we learn (intellectually) on MT can contribute to us being more well-rounded, in that it makes us aware (if we're willing to be honest with ourselves) of what we do not know. If I just look at videos of Wing Chun, for instance, there's much that seems to make sense. But when I hear someone on the WC forum talk about their power generation, it doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, I know less about the mechanics of WC than my viewing of a video would lead me to believe. Awareness of that lack of understanding is part of being more "well rounded", IMO.

The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.

 

[drop bear]

Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small. In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.

I don't fall off motorbikes but I do wear a quality helmet.

 

[drop bear]

The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.

You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.

Those were on my mind when I wrote it, along with some of the "anti-boxing".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.

Agreed. If nothing else, you need to at the very least know what good grappling is. If all someone has is that knowledge, they'll likely devise reasonable tactics against it, even if they can't practice those against decent grapplers (a handicap, obviously). Without it, nothing they devise is likely to be useful.

 

[Jenna]

Yes, as I received it, I saw an insufficiency in NGA. I'm not aware of anyone in NGA who was at that time teaching more extensive or effective ground work (there are some doing so now). The principles were all there, but not the right techniques. By bringing in a few techniques from outside and adapting them to NGA, it now has a reasonable set of basic ground escapes.

It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?

I don't think the necessary tools (techniques) existed within the art, though the principles did. Everything I have added to my curriculum is consistent with the principes and movement of the art.

So, I suppose someone with a good analystical mind and patience - and a good training partner or two - could have developed workable techniques from scratch. It would take a lot of time and effort, though. I just borrowed from styles with similar principles.

 

[drop bear]

It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?