Anti Grappling

[Gezere]

Grappling =/= groundfighting

This is the part the Kempofist is not understanding even after posting a definition of GRAPPLING.

Groundfighting is one ASPECT of grappling not grappling itself.

Again for an EASY subject its funny how pple have a hard time with it. :profe:

[MichaelDescado]

Well, the way I see it, fighting is fighting. People who cling to a desgination like "anti-grappling" are simply making excuses for their perceived and very real need to learn grappling. If you say, "oh, I'm wrestling in addition to doing Wing Chun!" you're a traitor non-purist and you must be killed. But if you say, "Ah ha! Now I'm doing hidden Wing Chun anti-grappling moves!" you're still in the fold.

All that aside, the grappling/striking arguement has always seemed silly to me because, again, it's all fighting. I can remember a time when I was more comfortable as a striker, but now a days it's all blurred together for me. And the funny thing is, I now have LESS techniques in my arsenal than I did ten years ago.

[Torakaka]

hey I was in Asheville not long ago. Cute town :)

[Teh El Macho]

On side note, I may be wrong but I found the "grappler" in these clips to have a strong resemblance to Chris Kattan's "Mango" character:

You can't have-a de Mango!



(gay gasp!) My anti-grappling is not working!!!! What happen to my armadillo???"



Ay, ay, ay! Oh my God... my pussy!!! I didn't train for this!!!!

[Ke?poFist]

This is the part the Kempofist is not understanding even after posting a definition of GRAPPLING.

Groundfighting is one ASPECT of grappling not grappling itself.

Again for an EASY subject its funny how pple have a hard time with it. :profe:

I explicitly said in my last post before this that standing or on the ground, if the striker is stopping it from going to a "grappling" (grabbing, pulling, pushing, controlling) situation, then he would be nullifying his opponents grappling ability, and by definition "anti-grappling." I guess I'm too stupid to understand.

But I'm done with this, I'm wrong, you're right, end of argument.

[TehDeadlyDimMak]

This is like the first time I've seen an argument on Bullshido ending with someone admitting they were wrong...

wow...

infinite props

[Gezere]

I explicitly said in my last post before this that standing or on the ground, if the striker is stopping it from going to a "grappling" (grabbing, pulling, pushing, controlling) situation, then he would be nullifying his opponents grappling ability, and by definition "anti-grappling." I guess I'm too stupid to understand.

I guess so because if he had to SPRAWL he DIDN'T stop it from going into a GRAPPLING (grabbing, pulling, pushing, controlling) situation becuase you do that when you SPRAWL. Look at the pics of pple sprawling. Stoping a TAKEDOWN is not nullifying grappling its countering Grappling with Grappling. Why aren't you understanding that?

But I'm done with this, I'm wrong, you're right, end of argument.

This was obvious from the begining to everyone but you. :eusa_snoo

[Toby Christensen]

I've used judo throws on lots of wrestlers. I dont know what a 'wrestler takedown' is. But for the most part I do very well against the guys who come in to try judo from the local highschool, and I leverage my judo well when guys stand up with me in bjj. I dont normally do a lot of sacrifice throws wbecuase i'm new and still learning them, but I have pulled off one or two on occasion. Granted the only wrestlers I get to work with are 17-18 year old kids with no patience and try way to hard to muscle you, but I still get to throw around 'wrestlers'. The bjj guys tend to be a little harder because they dont seem to care if I throw them. Sometimes they even help me just so they can work on the ground. I've had guys try to pull me down on them while I was setting up a leg reap to land on them anyways.

Well I like the single leg and backheel. They're examples of wrestling takedowns.

[Tom Kagan]

I explicitly said in my last post before this that standing or on the ground, if the striker is stopping it from going to a "grappling" (grabbing, pulling, pushing, controlling) situation, then he would be nullifying his opponents grappling ability, and by definition "anti-grappling." I guess I'm too stupid to understand.

But I'm done with this, I'm wrong, you're right, end of argument.

Suppose you throw a jab at me but you have the common habit of dropping your guard on the recovery. In response, I time it, angle out of range, and follow your hand back with an up and over blast which connects solidly.

Am I anti-punching?



There is big difference between "anti" and "counter". You may want to say things like "He jumped off the cliff and fell to his birth", but don't be a dufus and say it's just semantics.

[Ke?poFist]

I guess so because if he had to SPRAWL he DIDN'T stop it from going into a GRAPPLING (grabbing, pulling, pushing, controlling) situation becuase you do that when you SPRAWL. Look at the pics of pple sprawling. Stoping a TAKEDOWN is not nullifying grappling its countering Grappling with Grappling. Why aren't you understanding that?

Because if they did sprawl and grabbed like that in the pics, then yes they are using a grappling technique, but only to get themselves back into the upright position to strike rather than continue grappling. They are doing what they have to do for a moment to AVOID going into a grappling situation. I've also seen fighters sprawl back with just pushing their hands out into the shooter without locking up and going to the floor like they did in your pics, and instead just struck down the back of the head, pummeling them into the floor. Liddell is notorious for that type of technique.

[Teh El Macho]

KempoFist, you can't use a clinch to minimize/nullify a grappler's skills and call that "anti-grappling". Why? Because a clinch is a grappling manouver. It just happens to be a standup grappling one - most of the time, for I can attempt to box-like clinch my opponent's arms if I have them on my guard, or even if I'm mounted. Nothing prevents me from doing so. Whether I successfully use such a clinch or not, that's another issue, but the fact remains that, by definition, clinch is grappling, whether it is done by Helio Gracie or a boxer who doesn't know what "open guard" stands for.

You used wikipedia to pull up a definition of sprawl-and-brawl, but you forgot to see the definitions of clinch, grappling, and to my horror, the very definition of sprawl... more on that below.

A wrestler/BJJer/grappler's sprawl involved grabbing and going to the ground with them.

Not necessarily. The sprawl is a very, very, very specifc response/counter to a certain class of takedowns. Similarly, there are ways to take somebody to the ground that cannot be countered as effectively with a sprawl .ie. a judo hip throw:

From wikipedia

A sprawl is a martial arts and especially wrestling term for a defensive technique that is done in response to certain takedown attempts. Sprawling is typically done in response to an opponents double or single leg takedown attempt, and is performed by scooting the legs backwards, so as to land on the upper back of the opponent attempting the takedown. The resultant position is known as a sprawling position.

In mixed martial arts, sprawling is an important aspect of the sprawl and brawl tactic.

Another definition of sprawl is found here:

An elementary counter to a leg shot. The wrestler throws his legs back, arching his hips into the opponent if necessary, making it harder to keep a grip on his legs

Whatever happens after the sprawl (.ie. remain and hold on to opponent's back, clinch, go to the ground), that is a move/technique independent of the sprawl. It will be like saying a takedown involves a pin of your opponent because the pin occurred after the takedown, or that a cross and and a hook are part of a jab just because you can follow it with the formers... at least, that's how I understand it.

I'm open to corrections if my interpretation is wrong :qfrog:

A strikers sprawl involves spreading of the feet in a similar fashion, but rather than clinching up and going for the ground and pound/submission they strike with their hands/knees to keep distance and do damage.

By the same token, the striker may choose to pound the shit out of the grappler to follow up a successfull execution of a sprawl... but most likely that will have to involve a clinch of sorts. The grappler is not going to stop motionless after his takedown gets countered by the striker's sprawl!!!

For the striker to be able to punch the grappler and/or to get up and keep the distance after successfull application of a sprawl, he has to control the grappler - clinch.

A sprawl is a sprawl regardless of whether a striker or grappler does it. What happens after the sprawl, how the sprawler follows it up, that's up to the circumstances and up to the sprawler's gameplan.

You do realize we are arguing nothing but semantics at this point right?

Meaningful arguments are about arguing about semantics: semantics is the study of meaning, opposite to syntax. And in this case, I believe you apply different meanings to sprawl as executed by a striker and/or a grappler. I understand sprawl to be one thing, and one thing only - scoot the legs out and land on your opponent's back when performing a specific type of takedown. How you follow it (go to ground, stand, punch the shit out), that would be a syntactic discussion.

*** now this is interesting ***

This is true, but their groundfighting knowledge has nothing to do with the argument. My point has been all along that if one can stop the fight from clinching and going to a grappling situation

Incorrect. The moment a fight goes to a clinch, that's the moment that the grappling phase begins. You can't avoid doing grappling by doing (clinching) grappling. :tard: This is because clinch is a general term for stand-up grappling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grappli...pling_position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch_fighting
Ergo, if you are clinching, you are grappling. Again, to quote Kidspatula, grappling =/= groundfighting. Grappling can be standing or on the ground, and clinching is standup grappling. Whether you use standup grappling (clinch) i a striking or grappling game, that's another topic.

Also from wikipedia:http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start...wiki/Grappling
Grappling is an element of many martial arts, and consists of techniques for handling the opponent in which the opponent is held or gripped rather than struck. This includes maneuvers to obtain a strong position (for example guard or mount), takedowns, various pins, joint locks, and pain locks.

[wakinonioi]

Because if they did sprawl and grabbed like that in the pics, then yes they are using a grappling technique, but only to get themselves back into the upright position to strike rather than continue grappling. They are doing what they have to do for a moment to AVOID going into a grappling situation. .

Why do you persist in being wrong after it has been explained to you about a million times?

[Ke?poFist]

Well that was a very well thought out and researched post Elnyka. I suppose you nailed the problem on the head where I seem to have a different definition, or rather a broader definition of what sprawling is to me, that I suppose isn't an accurate depiction of what generally is accepted by most MA circles, and experts. I suppose what I was describing could be better defined as distancing and striking rather than truly sprawling. And yes TDDMak, I was wrong, and I have no problem admitting it.

[Goju - Joe]

I think a very simple explanation of anti-grappling is the belief that you can stop a grapplers takedowns and submissions by striking alone. The Sprawl is not striking and therefore shouldn't be considered anti-grappling.

Having said that I want to point out that in the UFC Drew Fikett (spelling?) knocked out Josh Koschek a D-1 level wrestler as he went in for a take down with a knee to the head. This is after Kosheck dominated the fight and took him down again and again.

So it is possible once in a blue moon to use strikeing alone to stop a grappler, however it's so low percentage as to be almost usless.

[broken fingers]

why do wing chun threads always explode on this site?