Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?

[Ironbear24]

You mean stuff like this?

I don't consider that "grappling", so feel free to be offended.

That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.

Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things.

Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?

You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.

 

[sgraves]

Judo has the same objective. Is Judo not a standing art?

do you consider shaolin kung fu a grappling art

 

[Hanzou]

That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.

That isn't my only definition of grappling. Just FYI.

Nor is that the point of this conversation. If you wish to pick up this conversation, feel free to restart the numerous threads about that very topic.

 

[Ironbear24]

That isn't my only definition of grappling. Just FYI.

Nor is that the point of this conversation. If you wish to pick up this conversation, feel free to restart the numerous threads about that very topic.

There is no thread. If you define grappling as something different from the definition then I won't argue with you about it. That doesn't change what grappling is however.

 

[Hanzou]

its considered a standing art because its tossing or throwing the form of combat is throwing or tossing not rolling around on the ground

Uh, what?

Ground (Grappling) Techniques

They're in place in case the throw doesn't end the fight.....

Just like in Bjj.

 

[Ironbear24]

Uh, what?

Ground (Grappling) Techniques

They're in place in case the throw doesn't end the fight.....

Just like in Bjj.

So one technique makes it a ground art? There many techniques where you throw them to the floor then strike them or stomp them.

 

[Hanzou]

So one technique makes it a ground art? There many techniques where you throw them to the floor then strike them or stomp them.

Looks like someone didn't hit the link above the picture.......

 

[sgraves]

idk how else to say it tbh

 

[Ironbear24]

Looks like someone didn't hit the link above the picture.......

Yes they exist in Judo. I know this because I have done judo alongside karate, that doesn't make it a ground fighting art because the philosophy of Judo is not "take your opponent to the ground." That is however Brazilian Jiu Jutsu's philosophy.

We hear it all the time, "take your opponent to the ground to eliminate their striking and better control them."

 

[Buka]

That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.

Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things.

Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?

You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.

We all have opinions. In mine, that is not grappling, at least as I know it. I also have a lot of experience in stand up wrist locks, arm control etc. And in boxing, as one who likes to fight in the kitchen, I'm experienced in clinching, but that is not what I think of when I hear, or use the word, "grappling".
Again - just my opinion.

This thread is turning into a strange disagreement. Interesting, though.

These statements -

Hanzou is a BJJ "fanboy.
BJJ is 95% groundwork
TKD as no punches

- all paint false pictures.

Hanzou is not a fan boy. He is a dedicated BJJ practitioner, one with a former background in Shotokan Karate.
While considered politically incorrect by many in his opining on the forum, he has an experienced point of view. I wouldn't go to him if he ran a PR firm, but I would if he ran a dojo.

BJJ is 95% groundwork, while close to true, at least hours wise, it leads one to believe that BJJ has little ability to deal with stand up. That just isn't close to true. If you do stand up and face a BJJ fighter, you will encounter a nightmare if you are not prepared to fight a BJJ fighter.

TKD no punches, a boxer may think that, and if a TKD practitioner fought a boxer only using his hands he would be at a disadvantage. But he wouldn't be using anywhere near his entire skill set. And there are few things in life more fun than sweeping and kicking boxers. (he says with a wicked grin)

I have been in Karate a long time. The amount of ground work practiced in Karate today, at least as I know Karate, is far different than what was practiced pre 1990's.

 

[Hanzou]

Yes they exist in Judo. I know this because I have done judo alongside karate, that doesn't make it a ground fighting art because the philosophy of Judo is not "take your opponent to the ground." That is however Brazilian Jiu Jutsu's philosophy.

Where did I say that Judo is a ground fighting art? I said that Judo and Bjj have the same philosophy in general, which is to take your opponent to the ground. If the throw takes him out, fine. However if your opponent isn't finished then you have ground grappling to finish the job.

Bjj focuses more on ground fighting, but that doesn't mean that we've completely abandoned the standing game. Judo focuses more on Nage-waza, but that doesn't mean that they've completely abandoned the ground game.

We hear it all the time, "take your opponent to the ground to eliminate their striking and better control them."

Yes, and that philosophy exists in Judo as well.

 

[Ironbear24]

Where did I say that Judo is a ground fighting art? I said that Judo and Bjj have the same philosophy in general, which is to take your opponent to the ground. If the throw takes him out, fine. However if your opponent isn't finished then you have ground grappling to finish the job.

Bjj focuses more on ground fighting, but that doesn't mean that we've completely abandoned the standing game. Judo focuses more on Nage-waza, but that doesn't mean that they've completely abandoned the ground game.



Yes, and that philosophy exists in Judo as well.

I know they don't abandon the ground game, I acknowledge that ground techniques exist. (Ne waza) but to compare it to bjj seems silly because the two are very different, I know bjj comes from Judo but the focus is not so much in the floor as bjj.

 

[sgraves]

I never once said that bjj didn't have standing technqiues and ill never take away from that art I just said you cant say that you can place bjj as martial art that has equal standing techniques as it does ground cause it wouldn't be accurate whatsoever that's just my take on it my opinion wasn't supposed to spark this kind of debate i

 

[Ironbear24]

Hanzou is not a fan boy. He is a dedicated BJJ practitioner, one with a former background in Shotokan Karate.
While considered politically incorrect by many in his opining on the forum, he has an experienced point of view. I wouldn't go to him if he ran a PR firm, but I would if he ran a dojo.

Well considering his behavior (not in this thread but past threads.) He comes off like a fanboy and has on multiple occasions trash talked TMA. If he does have a shotokan karate background I don't understand all the TMA bashing.

And when you defend something so adamently to the point you refuse to acknowledge it has weaknesses than that is acting like a fanboy.

 

[Phobius]

1. Is the conclusion reached from that YT video factual or not?

Actually it is opinion. There was nothing factual about it. A clip about two guys fighting that goes to the ground. For all we know the guy might know more than he wanted to show, or missed a lot of practise in terms of ground fighting. Maybe he felt he did not need groundgame and ignored it. Maybe his sifu did not teach it because he thought time was better spent standing up. Or his sifu simply had no groundgame to teach.

A judgement based on a video is purely opinion. Bringing back the question, you honestly think YouTube can be considered proof?

2. At this point in the evolution of martial arts, yes.

Interesting. So how much time do you train to punch or kick in BJJ? I mean, after all at this point in the evolution that is a requirement is it not?

Do you have some examples that you could show me? Further, can you confirm that they're native to Wing Chun and not an add-on some sifu attached to WC in order to stem the MMA fad? I'd be very interested in seeing them. Hopefully its not like some other TMA ground fighting that has been posted earlier on these forums.

There is no traditional Wing Chun, just like there no longer is a traditional BJJ. It is constantly evolving. People may argue with me but things do evolve.

And what are you expecting from a groundfighting system in TMA? You want them to be BJJ? Newsflash since you have no logic at all in your statements, 99% of the stuff you do in BJJ is not applicable to self defense unless you are attacked by a grappler. (That 1% is enought to protect against almost all attacks)

Many TMA's have some limited groundwork to allow them to survive well against a non-skilled attacker. That is the goal and what they do is simply something that fits with their training and is easily taught and practised. Problem with all no matter what it is, it is easily destroyed by a grappler. Here comes the newsflash, nothing can beat a grappler unless you spend equal amount of time training grappling. You do not become a better fighter at someones game unless you train more than they do.

Oh and to continue the thought process you refused to accept. Many practitioners of for instance WC are training a secondary art for learning grappling and ground fighting. Reason why? Because the more people that watch UFC the more general knowledge some techniques become and someday soon we might start seeing them on the streets because people grow up with thinking it is the way one should fight.

According to you, an art does not exist or can be called good unless it can cover ground game as well, spoken by a grappler who can not handle all standup games. Or you never seen a grappler do a crappy job in defending him/herself against punches or kicks? I am sure there are plenty of proof on that on YouTube as well.

Hopefully you recognize that all of those reasons are outright nonsense.

You are speaking nonsense. Or maybe perhaps you trained WC for many sifus? Learned all about how the world works by travelling the entire world and doing everything? Or perhaps you are just some guy that thinks his own art can only be better if he assumes all other arts are crap? Not saying you are, but telling you some of my worries based on the way you write.

Good.

Well given you learn punching and kicking in your BJJ class I am sure you dont need to think much about mixing.

There's a stark difference between not teaching ground fighting in a hand to hand fighting system, and not teaching how to shoot a gun in a MA school dedicated to hand to hand fighting. There's some pretty good reasons not to teach shooting in a Bjj gym. There's very little reason not to teach ground fighting in a MA school.

You do know most places I seen and/or talked with train groundfighting to a limited amount. Nothing that would beat a grappler but still.

Things like not landing on your head, getting back up to base and kicking your opponent and preventing him from getting close. When all that comes to **** and the opponent sits on you? Well there is only so much you can learn before you have to become a dedicated groundfighting art. There is only so much you can learn in a class before the time is up for the day. Besides, why evolve a whole solution to groundfighting when GJJ and BJJ does it so much better?

 

[Skullpunch]

As for the first, if you note, I said Royler had issues with them more so than "beaten" by them. It was Royce who said that in an interview, maybe because on the surface the way Royler ended up being the first loss for the Gracies in MMA appeared to be based on kicks softening him up for the final submission? I don't know but you would have to ask Royce.

Your claim about the kickboxers was in response to me saying that the Gracie's LOST to OTHER GRAPPLERS. A he said/she said statement about one gracie struggling to but not necessarily losing to kickboxers is irrelevant to my argument.

As for Sakuraba he won imo for two reasons. First fight he was good enough of a wrestler to NOT play into Royler's ground game. If he was a "better" wrestler why dodge it? Answer going wrestling mode would have played to Royler's strengths, Sakuraba was good enough to avoid and smart enough not to be baited and used striking to soften Royler up to the point where the ground game was practical. Against Royce the above with one additional factor. The lack of time limit meant that as the fight started getting to like the 5th round Sakuraba being in better condition had more "wind" left in him than Royce. So that after what was essentially 2 straight rounds of unanswered kicking to the legs (rounds 5 and 6) Rorion threw in the towel.

You do know that defensive wrestling is wrestling, right? Using your wrestling to control where the fight goes and keep/take it exactly where you want it isn't "dodging" your wrestling, it's using it exactly what it's intended for.

your claim that you had to be a better grappler to beat another grappler.

Does not exist because I never made such a claim

 

[Hanzou]

I know they don't abandon the ground game, I acknowledge that ground techniques exist. (Ne waza) but to compare it to bjj seems silly because the two are very different, I know bjj comes from Judo but the focus is not so much in the floor as bjj.

Because of Kano's personal distaste of newaza, and because of Judo's competition rules. However, its all there, it simply isn't emphasized. The same situation is in Bjj, only reversed, with more focus on newaza than nagewaza. That being said, stereotypically a Judoka throws better than a Jiujiteiro, and a Jiujiteiro is better at ground grappling (and knows a few more dirty tricks) than a Judoka. That doesn't mean that either one of them couldn't throw you to the ground and choke you out with authority.

 

[Ironbear24]

Because of Kano's personal distaste of newaza, and because of Judo's competition rules. However, its all there, it simply isn't emphasized. The same situation is in Bjj, only reversed, with more focus on newaza than nagewaza. That being said, stereotypically a Judoka throws better than a Jiujiteiro, and a Jiujiteiro is better at ground grappling (and knows a few more dirty tricks) than a Judoka. That doesn't mean that either one of them couldn't throw you to the ground and choke you out with authority.

^^
Yup. Different focuses on different styles of grappling.

 

[Steve]

That is grappling. If your definition of grappling is only rolling around on the ground with your opponent than you don't you know what grappling is.

Furthermore traditional karate teaches you everything regarding self defense, someone trying to kill you. When people try to kill you they tend to try to grab you to either tackle you to the floor, or choke or you or push you into things.

Why would an art as old as karate not have answers to something the most unskilled and inexperienced fighters will try to do to you?

You are talking out of ignorance here just like many people do with your art.

How many people have tried to kill you? If the answer is zero, aren't you also talking out of ignorance here?

 

[Ironbear24]

How many people have tried to kill you? If the answer is zero, aren't you also talking out of ignorance here?

Why would that be talking out of ignorance if we were trained to deal with that situation?