The grappling art should be learned first. It's not because which art is better, it's because the grappling art training method is superior than the striking art training method.
"Superior"? Hmm... not sure about that. If you're better at it, yeah... if you're a better striker, probably not. But really, there isn't a single skill set that's "superior" to another... but there are training methodologies that are superior to others.
The grappling art has no forms. You learn one throw after another.
No forms? Really? Well, I guess the primarily grappling systems that I study, involving some 500+ kata (forms) aren't really grappling arts, then? Learning a throw then another isn't learning a grappling art, it's learning a (basic, rudimentary) throwing skill. Big difference. In other words, the art is not the techniques.
You also learn that the grappling art cannot be learned "solo".
I guess I waste a lot of time training it all solo, then...
After you have learned some grappling art, when you start to learn the striking art, you will try to use your grappling art learning method to apply on your striking art learning.
Yeah... I'd largely advise against it, though. Of course, it depends on the art itself, a number of systems I train obviously have the striking and the grappling sharing a large proportion of mechanics, but the footwork and stance of boxing is quite different to that found in wrestling (as an example). You can compromise both in order to come up with a half-way measure to combine them, but it's no longer actually giving you the best from either (MMA being a good example, actually).
Since you may know that both wrestling "single leg" and Judo "hip throw" work well, you won't have "style boundary" when you get into your striking art training.
If there is no "style boundary", as you refer to it, there is no art. A martial art is defined by it's "style boundary". It's what gives it it's methodology, it's context, it's approach, it's technical makeup, it's tactics, it's strategies, and so on.
From your grappling art training, you will understand that the closer the distance, the safer that you will be.
And from my knife defence training, I learn that that's simply not always true. Additionally, if you're up against a more skilled grappler, being in close really isn't going to be safer at all... it's all to do with context and the situation at the time.
When you start to learn the striking art, you will like to move in toward your opponent with courage. That will be a good thing for your striking art training.
Depends entirely on what your aims are. Mine is more self defence orientated, so always moving in towards an opponent isn't a good idea... for a sporting system, sure.
The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment.
But striking can't? Maybe you should tell all the (sport) karate, TKD, boxing clubs around the place that what they're doing isn't a safe sporting environment....
You will get good result in a short period of time. In 6 month of grappling art training, you should be able to take most people down by your "single leg".
Sure... and I can get you striking solidly, and effectively, as well as learning how to apply it in reactive and pro-active methods, drilled and trained in a few weeks. Hell, I've done that for people before. And I'd consider my arts to be more grappling heavy than striking, when all's said and done.
If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.
So can striking.
The "style boundary" is the attitude such as "My style doesn't do this.", "It's against my style principle.", "My style is better than your style", ...
Aside from the last one, provided the reasoning is understood, the comments made here are not only perfectly valid, they are essential if you consider yourself to be a martial artists, rather than just a fighter who knows some techniques.
You threw effective chokes last night on somebody who knows you, who knows you mean him no harm and doesn't actually feel threatened by you. I mean no offense so please don't take it as such but I would take your 1 night rookie challenge any day of the week (Pre-emptive knockout strike versus a simple throw)
Ha, not speaking for Kirk here, but if his approach is anything like mine, or if his training methods are anything like mine, then yeah, his training partners will feel threatened by him... and, for the record, your offer of taking up a 1 night rookie challenge doesn't really tell me anything other than that, despite your "real world experience", you have a lack of any real grasp on the differences between a challenge and a real encounter... and when your pre-emptive strike would be effective. The more aware someone is of being hit, the less effect a pre-empt has... your best chance would be to apply it when asking about the rules of the challenge... once it's on, you'll find that it's a completely different world...
In other words, ha! No.
If you and I are face to face in a confrontation it takes me but a split second to strike one of several vital areas that will either end the confrontation or disorient you before I can follow with another split second strike. You will struggle mightily to get anybody in an effective type of choke due to the fact that you have to actually get into position in the first place.
Ooh, lovely.... remembering that challenges aren't really encouraged (or, bluntly, allowed) here, the lack of understanding of both the viability of getting a single, fight-ending strike off, or how grappling works.
I can talk chokes with you all day long but this thread is about whether or not you should study ground fighting or striking first. I tend to relate things to the real world including things that work better than others and I have had a pretty substantial real world classroom to study from. Just telling it like it is.......
Yeah... grappling simply means "to seize, or hold"... nothing to do with ground work specifically.
