Anti-Grapple

[It is Fake]

On another thread we are discussing anti-grapple. Obviously there is much back and forth.

I agree, it shouldn't be taught by an untrained practitioner. I don't know what they should call it. Could you really call it "BJJ", if you are not actually using the entire system and only using elements and certain techniques in a system? Does JJJ and BJJ own the rights to all ground techniques, so if you use anything found in any of those systems you have to call it BJJ/JJJ? I suppose that is a different topic, that I don't really want to get into, but I find it to be a interesting issue. What ever you call it though, a qualified individual should be teaching it.

Here is what I said

You have just defined anti-grapple perfectly. An individual using specific techniques from a grappling art without credit or training.

Interesting?? So, as to not stink up the other thread I brought it here instead.

[Roidie McDouchebag]

I think of the anti-grapple as an amorphous, absolute evil, kind of like Satan's shadow.

[Shu2jack]

From what I posted in that other thread later......

I wasn't so much concerned with "anti-grappling". The issue I am curious about is Taking certain segments of an art (actually learning them from a legit instructor), giving credit to where you learned it, and calling it ground fighting vs. Calling something BJJ, or JJJ, but not actually teaching the complete system.

If a martial artist (lets use a TKDer as an example, since a TKDer started this mess) learns to grapple from a qualified instructor and he passes on some of this knowledge to TKD students, what should you call it?

It would the right thing to do to let students know where you learned what you are teaching, but could you honestly call it BJJ/JJJ/what ever? Calling it such might imply that you are teaching the system/art, which you are not.

You could still credit where you learned the grappling from, but would it be totally fair to just call what you are teaching "ground fighting"? It seems to be more accurate.

[MONGO]

From what I posted in that other thread later......



If a martial artist (lets use a TKDer as an example, since a TKDer started this mess) learns to grapple from a qualified instructor and he passes on some of this knowledge to TKD students, what should you call it?

It would the right thing to do to let students know where you learned what you are teaching, but could you honestly call it BJJ/JJJ/what ever? Calling it such might imply that you are teaching the system/art, which you are not.

You could still credit where you learned the grappling from, but would it be totally fair to just call what you are teaching "ground fighting"? It seems to be more accurate.

Knowing the knowledge well enough for you own use and well enough to teach it are two different things. If you learned TKD and BJJ but you aren't certified to teach one of them, don't. That is the reason for certification.......

Not all certs are equal. Its like saying a yoga instructor can teach TKD or along those lines.

This should not be done. IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN THAT INSTRUCTOR IS LYING. Period. They deserve to be decertified, crucified, sodomized, etc for doing it.

[Goju - Joe]

I don't think anit-grappling is badly taught grappling. It is the belief that a striker can use kicks and punches to stop a grapplers take downs. They often try and prove this by having another striker try to perform grappling take downs who knows nothing about them and thinks they are some sort of grossly telegraphed tackle where the grapplers head is exposed.

[Teh El Macho]

Well, anti-grappling is an oxymoronic term the way WChunners use it. Syntactically and semantically, anti-grappling could not contain any grappling in it. What WChunners are proposing in reality is non-grappling techinques to counter a grappler. That's how it should be called.

Now, I don't think such a concept is an oxymoron, but for someone to pull that off either he has to be a super-duper striking demi-god that does not need any knowledge of grappling to pull it off, or it has to be a competent striker with competent knowledge of grappling. So far, the "anti-grappling" we've seen constitutes neither.

[WunHungLo]

If a martial artist (lets use a TKDer as an example, since a TKDer started this mess) learns to grapple from a qualified instructor and he passes on some of this knowledge to TKD students, what should you call it?

If a TKD'er learned REAL grappling from a QUALIFIED instructor, he would quickly come to the conclusion that TKD is total ****, and begin training in a decent style.

[CanucKyokushin]

On another thread we are discussing anti-grapple. Obviously there is much back and forth.





Here is what I said



Interesting?? So, as to not stink up the other thread I brought it here instead.

What I think deffines anti-grapple are movements that relate to a standup fighter(wing-chun'er) fighting off a grappler.Most of these forms consist of side-kicks and parriing.

Or what Elnyka said.

[fanatical]

The real question is... Should one even begin to define ANTI-grappling?

Why aren't grapplers trying to invent anti-striking? Because the Anti-anything idea is moronic?

I think so.

[It is Fake]

What I think deffines anti-grapple are movements that relate to a standup fighter(wing-chun'er) fighting off a grappler.Most of these forms consist of side-kicks and parriing.

Or what Elnyka said.

At one time I'd agree. Yet, recently we had a person use the RNC and say BJJ doesn't work. We have WC'ers saying a bong sau(?) is an armbar escape. We have someone saying the sprawl is the anti-grapple even though it comes from grappling. Now, we have people on a thread saying it is good for a TKD to think outside the box, by doing the anti-grapple.


I know it is hard to define. I guess just watching as someone says it is okay to teach poor grappling, sometimes hidden within forms is, wrong.