Posted On:11/20/2002 7:38pm
Good point Little Idea. But you have to admit it can be misleading sometimes.
Ready are you? What know you of ready?
Posted On:11/21/2002 12:11am
Style: EBMAS WT(& Prenatal Yoga)
Until you actually go train. . .
I guess its misleading to people who are sitting on their computers typing about some video of demonstrations they saw.
The only way you can know if any thing is or isn't real is to feel it done on yourself. Grappling, striking, whatever. . .
The EBMAS 'anti-grappling' doesn't mean you aren't touching, manipulating, or being manipulated by a grappler. The philosophy is, I'm being 'grappled', how can I pound on this guy's face.
You want to call it 'grappling skills', great, if that makes you feel better about things. . .
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow
Talk to TBK's boyfriend:
Posted On:11/21/2002 12:44am
The prefix anti- means against. Anti-grappling therefore means "against grappling", what's so hard to understand?
Posted On:11/21/2002 12:49am
this was all addressed on another thread.
Posted On:11/21/2002 5:53am
Style: Karate, Wrestling
You can prevent grappling takedowns with space control, which strikers are expert in and grapplers are certainly not (being that they devote themselves entirely to only one of the four ranges), and angled movement.
With space control, you can jam some takedowns by moving in too close for someone to safely get at your legs, and you can evade others by keeping enough space between you and your opponent so that you are able to step back with effect when he initiates a takedown.
Combine this linear space control with angled movement and you improve it eightfold.
Further, on the notion that you must perform a grappling technique to counter another grappling technique, I must disagree. I noted space control and angling above, in addition to those, there is the sprawl. You may call it grappling, since most grappling styles teach it as a logical response to the shot/takedown. This is where we get into semantics and classification, unfortunately...
If a striker does a sprawl in response to a shot, is he doing BJJ? Wrestling? Grappling in general? If he doesn't continue on the ground for a submission, is he still grappling? What if he gets mount and goes for gnp, or lets his opponent up and continues to strike, is he still grappling?
If so, why? Because the sprawl is a grappling move, and only grappling moves can counter other grappling moves? I don't see any basis in logic for this.
It's certainly not true with any of the other ranges; for example, a trap can counter a punch, a kick can counter a punch, grappling can counter a kick, etc.
Something like the sprawl is simultaneously a basic and effective defense to a common attack, the shot takedown. It has its counterparts in the other ranges, like a block to a punch, counter-trapping, or leg checks.
If a grappler defends against a punching range attack with a block, does that make him a striker? Does he need to know how to strike to do this? I don't believe so.
The same goes for a striker, if he sprawls against a shot, does he need to study BJJ or Collegiate Wrestling to learn how to do that? Certainly not.
These basic defenses are things that someone with any sort of martial sense would know and do intuitively in a fight; you block because you don't want to get hit by a good striker, you sprawl and keep your legs out of his hands because you don't want to be on the bottom against a grappler.
I can recall personally using the leg check without being taught in TKD (before I learned it was illegal), and seeing guys join my wrestling team in HS who may not have had perfect sprawls but knew that was generally what you wanted to do if you were shot at, and who also knew enough about leverage to provide a natural reaction that had some effectiveness against takedowns and pin attempts.
If you train basic defenses and counters to techniques in ranges different than your specialty, like a striker learning the sprawl or sub escapes, does that change your specialty? Do you have to fully study the art from which those attacks came to learn how to defend against them? I don't think so.
A striker can beat a grappler's attacks with grappling moves and without. Defending against a takedown, no matter what technique of what range you use, does not make one a grappler or even definitively state that one is using a grappling technique. Beyond that, a striker can use a grappling technique or a striking technique in a grappling situation, i.e. you can strike a person while in his guard, or you can try to pass or escape it. One sprawl or headlock escape does not a grappler make.
If a fighter avoids being taken down, that's anti-grappling, if he escapes a sub or disadvantageous position with a grappling move, and then goes back to striking, that's anti-grappling.
A grappler and a striker facing the same bad situation can do the same grappling technique to escape, the fighter that does it and gets in striking position is doing it as anti-grappling, the one that does it and goes eventually for a sub is doing it as grappling.
Grappling is just one of the four ranges of unarmed combat, just like kicking, punching, and trappling.
This, like the rest, is just my opinion, but I think that there is a 'martial calculus' of sorts, like how fencing has been reduced to a science, but on a much grander scale than fencing, one yet to be fully explored. What I mean by this is, grappling isn't like "dynamite" that wins every time, it's closer to (but not exactly) "rock" "paper" or "scissors" which can win in certain situations but lose in others.
It's entirely a misconception that grappling is "superior" to striking, just as it would be if someone in the distant future watching UFC 40,000 thought that striking was "superior" to grappling because strikers who learned basic grappling defense had only a few years ago burst onto the MMA scene and begun knocking out and beating bloody grapplers who forgot the power of striking.
"God is dead." -Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." -God
"The morning glory blooms for an hour. It differs not at heart from the giant pine, which lives for a thousand years."
Posted On:11/21/2002 1:35pm
Quote: "You can prevent grappling takedowns with space control, which strikers are expert in and grapplers are certainly not (being that they devote themselves entirely to only one of the four ranges), and angled movement."
This statement is completely wrong. BJJ, shootfighters, etc train not only in takedowns, but how to do it relatively safely to nullify strikes thrown at them. The clinch or shoot by one of these guys is not a blind rush where they can get easily hit in the face coming in. It can happen (Renzo vs. Henderson) but is not all that common.
Striking alone will not keep away someone who is trying to get a clinch/takedown and is good at it.
Posted On:11/21/2002 3:00pm
You couple prevent a takedown with proper space management. Logically speaking, if you kept a constant 5 ft between the striker and grappler, the grappler could not take you down (the striker couldn't hit either, but that's not the point)
Posted On:11/21/2002 3:57pm
I'm not talking about constantly running away, either. A striker can keep his distance and still find openings to attack, at which point he could move in and do his business until it became unsafe.
Donkeypenis: Are you and I talking about the same thing here? You quoted me on avoiding takedowns with space control/angling and then go on to say grapplers can do takedowns safely without getting hit in the face, which is beside the I made in what you quoted me on.
Granted, I don't doubt that most grapplers can take down most strikers without being hit, but if strikers start training specifically against it, they can start getting wins without spending time training BJJ.
"God is dead." -Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead." -God
Co-Founder, Retired Admin
Posted On:11/21/2002 5:32pm
Style: BJJ, Karate,
So Mercurius, your saying that a 125lbs woman could perform "anti Grappling" as well? The only person who might be able to do what your talking about is a powerful man with years of training. Its not a viable option for 90% of the world.
"All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC
Reverse punch Kiaii!!!
Posted On:11/21/2002 5:34pm
peedee/bitch- how was kung fu training yesturday you sack of ****
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info