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

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers. If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.

It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three. There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.

I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.

It need not have ever had it, even to be effective for fighting, if it was assumed most students would have some basics, already. This is similar to the argument that Ueshiba may not have taught all he thought was truly necessary for Aikido, because his early students all had significant experience in some basic areas (notably, probably strikes and close-body throws). He focused on teaching what they didn't have. If it was common for the folks coming to WC to have some basic grappling (and, almost automatically, some basic counters to grappling), it may not have been necessary to include that in the art.

 

[Jenna]

I don't think it's a failure. It's just the reality. We can only cover so much, and have to draw the line somewhere. It's only a failure (IMO) if the art claims to cover something, the student wants that something, and it's not really covered.

And but if it is a system of defence that cannot assist its student in all ways that student might require its defence, that is not a failure to be what it claim to be??

 

[JR 137]

It need not have ever had it, even to be effective for fighting, if it was assumed most students would have some basics, already. This is similar to the argument that Ueshiba may not have taught all he thought was truly necessary for Aikido, because his early students all had significant experience in some basic areas (notably, probably strikes and close-body throws). He focused on teaching what they didn't have. If it was common for the folks coming to WC to have some basic grappling (and, almost automatically, some basic counters to grappling), it may not have been necessary to include that in the art.

Good points.

 

[drop bear]

I like that swimming analogy, DB.

The way I see it, we can go looking for answers that already exist. We look at a wide range of them, and look for some that actually do fit the principles of the art. If we find some, "woohoo!" If we don't, then the art probably doesn't actually have principles to effectively cover that area, and it's time to either 1) accept the gap as part of the art and cross-train if we want to fill the gap, or 2) adjust the principles of the art to allow them to include something we've found elsewhere. Both of those are acceptable answers, though the second one would be a real pain in the ***.

So, back to the analogy. If I were a WC guy, and I saw some swimming videos (teaching swimming), and saw the WC principles being used, then I can teach swimming using WC principles (mostly adapting the language to fit what I found elsewhere). But I shouldn't arbitrarily try to use WC principles if they don't already fit the problem.

Yeah. That is why I have been adding. Non style specific to a lot of my posts now.

Takedown defence is not a wrestling principle. It is a takedown defence principle that wrestlers use.

 

[drop bear]

I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers. If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.

It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three. There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.

I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.

Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.

So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.

MMA you are a bit crap at both.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And but if it is a system of defence that cannot assist its student in all ways that student might require its defence, that is not a failure to be what it claim to be??

Not in my view. If it improves their overall ability to defend, it's a system of defense. Every system will have some holes. If a system is meant to be comprehensive, then it would be a failure (in my opinion) to have a large area (like ground defense) that isn't covered at least perfunctorily with some effective tools. But if a system is meant, for instance, to be a striking system used for self-defense, then a lack of ground grappling isn't a failure - it's simply something it wasn't meant to cover. The instructor should probably recommend students get some ground (and other) grappling experience, and perhaps bring in some seminars on it, but it need not be within the system, itself.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. That is why I have been adding. Non style specific to a lot of my posts now.

Takedown defence is not a wrestling principle. It is a takedown defence principle that wrestlers use.

That's a good way of looking at it. I have several tools that I teach in my curriculum, which aren't really part of NGA - they are specifically not style specific, in my experience. Some of the takedown defenses, hip throws, leg sweep variations, and some of the ground work. Much of that didn't come from my NGA experience, but work very well within it - as with many other styles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.

So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.

MMA you are a bit crap at both.

I need to ponder that. I've been training in an art that includes both for a long time, and my personal use has graduated more and more to striking over the last 10 years or so. I've never considered the principles as contradictory, but maybe only because I've never really considered it.

Good food for thought.

 

[Buka]

Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.

So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.

MMA you are a bit crap at both.

I don't know, the principles can work together well, some of them, anyway. The principles of a good punch come from a good base, at least the way we train. In grappling, you have to have a good base, at least the way we were taught. As an example of the blend of the two, look at a nice overhand right. You have to be in position to land it, so you're well within punching distance. If you use the proper principles and mechanics of an overhand right, you can use it as a disguise to shoot for a double or single leg. It can be a nice little cheat to get at his lower body.

Likewise, on the ground, if you have someone in your closed guard, using your core and hips to hold them, or move them to slightly different distances, or slightly left or right, you can utilize your punching, or elbows, with pretty much the same torquing principles as you would standing up. Your base would be different, but your core rotation would follow the same principles, albeit, not as strongly.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.

So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.

MMA you are a bit crap at both.

I don't know, the principles can work together well, some of them, anyway.

The key word here is "some." A lot of concepts do carry over from one domain to another, while others conflict or at least have to be applied differently. That's why you'll never see a fighter come out in a wrestling stance for a Muay Thai match or in a Muay Thai stance for a wrestling match.

 

[JR 137]

I don't know, the principles can work together well, some of them, anyway. The principles of a good punch come from a good base, at least the way we train. In grappling, you have to have a good base, at least the way we were taught. As an example of the blend of the two, look at a nice overhand right. You have to be in position to land it, so you're well within punching distance. If you use the proper principles and mechanics of an overhand right, you can use it as a disguise to shoot for a double or single leg. It can be a nice little cheat to get at his lower body.

Likewise, on the ground, if you have someone in your closed guard, using your core and hips to hold them, or move them to slightly different distances, or slightly left or right, you can utilize your punching, or elbows, with pretty much the same torquing principles as you would standing up. Your base would be different, but your core rotation would follow the same principles, albeit, not as strongly.

The key word here is "some." A lot of concepts do carry over from one domain to another, while others conflict or at least have to be applied differently. That's why you'll never see a fighter come out in a wrestling stance for a Muay Thai match or in a Muay Thai stance for a wrestling match.

I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else. When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded. I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me. I'm not much of a kicker anyway.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else. When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded. I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me. I'm not much of a kicker anyway.

I can definitely agree with that. I rarely kick, unless it's an opening move on someone not being cautious enough, or someone just gives me an opening too sweet to pass up.

 

[drop bear]

I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else. When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded. I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me. I'm not much of a kicker anyway.

Depends how you kick as well.

Thai style kicks are a bit easy to take advantage of. Karate style or flick style kicks come off a lot less predictably but not as hard.

So then you weigh up is it worth maybe having to fight off your back to throw a hard kick.