No announcement yet.

Does wrestling really OWN the traditional arts?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Does wrestling really OWN the traditional arts?

    This is only a question ive wondered about for a while now.If you learned and train a traditional martial art,which also includes weapons,why would any of the traditional martial arists go fist to fist with a more powerful(muscular) oppenent?Isnt that wasting half of your training?Most wrestling,BBJ,and other gyms dont teach how to defend half of the weapons we use.Screw being nice,if i had to fight im bringing my weapons.There are so many things than would give such stylists a really hard time.Swords,spears,hell even butterfly knives.Why fight fist to fist?So why do all the TMA's try to justify they can beat a stronger hand to hand system,screw it,use your damn weapon training.It sure worked on the battle field.

    You fight with your fists because anything more will almost certainly land you in jail unless your opponent is also armed. It's not about mean or nice, it's about survival, which includes your legal survival.

    As to wrestling owning tma... Most tma guys don't train worth a flip, so yeah, a competant wrestler's gonna mete out some cold justice on his tma ass. However, if you do karate, jujutsu, or even v/wing ts/chun, AND you train realistically against varying opponents in varying situations, as well as testing yourself agianst other styles, you should do fine against the same ol every day wrestler.

    In short, your forms won't beat a wrestler, your theories won't beat a wrestler, and your chi damn sure won't beat a wrestler.
    Train as reastically as possible regardless of style and make certain you can actually do what you THINK you can do.

    - Skummer -

    If you think you can speak about Tao, it is clear you don't know what you're talking about.
    -Lao Tzu

    Edited by - skummer on July 26 2003 03:20:30


      Much of the reason grappling beats traditional striking in a ring is that the entire format of the contest gives an advantage to the grappler, because his techniques are more readily adaptable to submitting an opponent, whereas a striker, restrained not only from the much maligned palm strikes to the nose and eye rakes, is also robbed of other potentially lethal attacks to vulnerable targets, whereas the wrestler is free to use any weapon in his arsenal against any legal target--I find not being able to break a man's wrist no fair trade-off for not being able to pull his hair back and chop him in the throat in terms of gauging the effectiveness of an art in uncontrolled conditions.

      Getting closer back to the original topic, I think if you get into a fight carrying numchucks, it's going to look bad in front of a jury, especially if your attacker's lawyer is skilled at making him look like the victim who mistakenly enraged someone with a hair-trigger temper and severe lack of restraint.



        I present articles of evidence Gracie Jiu Jitsu Volumes 1, 2, and 3.

        No holds barred, anything goes. Hard to pull that head back and chop the throat when you are mounted and receiving numerous punches to the face and body.

        "When we go to the ground, you are in my world. The ground is the ocean, I am the shark, and most people don't even know how to swim." RCJ Machado


          most traditionalists are ill equipped to deal with 'shoot' and grapples. but a little distinction needs to made here.

          the traditional arts that focus purely/primarily on striking without utilizing chinna and 'bodylocking' work, are the ones who suffer from this vulnerability.

          simply because they are unfamiliar with the technology. a western boxer would be in the same category.

          on the other hand, many arts have a strong emphasis on grappling and control of structure.

          oh btw, haven't you guys figured out yet that you need to know how to strike and grapple in a cohesive and cosupportive method? all of this ranting about striking v.s. grappling indicates that you have yet to realize the true nature of systemized martial training.

          i can fight upright to the ground and up the nearest tree if need be. i throw dirt, bricks, and knives. i use jumping, rolling, tackling, combos, flurries, and a strident desire to break your focking spine in two as my system. if i find that i dont simply outclass you, which is normally the case, then i will cheat, lie, and steal to win.

          the real bullshido is this mentality of this v.s. that. rampant around here.


          <marquee> INDONESIAN GUNG FU</marquee>


            If you take martial arts to use weapons like swords and spears for self defense, you might as well invest in a gun.


              If I have a weapon it's going to be a gun. If I don't have a gun, it's because I can't have a weapon in that place/circumstance. So if we're in a place where you can have your butterfly swords, I'm shooting you. And if were're not, then you'd better know how to fight on the ground.

              And Merc, could you pull out anti-grappling arguments that are any more cliche' (and answered a hundred times)? I mean, do you really believe that stuff?


              Carl: So, where we goin'?
              Lenny: Ape Island. I hate Ape Island!
              Carl: Why's that?
              Lenny: It's full of giant apes. I wish we were going to Candy Apple Island!
              Carl: Why? What's on Candy Apple Island?
              Lenny: Apes. But they're not as big.


                Wrestling ISN'T a traditional martial art? I thought that was the most traditional in pretty much every country in existence (& in many that aren't anymore)...


                  "Wrestling ISN'T a traditional martial art? I thought that was the most traditional in pretty much every country in existence (& in many that aren't anymore)..."

                  If it works in the ring there is no way it can be a TMA!!! Get with the program, n0ob!!!!!!!

                  Boxing is boxing - all boxers box when they box, they train to boxing for boxing matches - get it? - Blade Windu 7/25/03


                    LOL Choke. i was seriously tired when i wrote that and i was totally joking.

                    "If you don't know how to Grapple/Wrestle you don't know how to fight, that's the prerequisite to fighting" David Tank Abbott


                      I know, i know Blade. I couldn't help myself! It'll come down in a few days.

                      Boxing is boxing - all boxers box when they box, they train to boxing for boxing matches - get it? - Blade Windu 7/25/03


                        Wrestling was in the Greek Olympics before the Shaolin monks were born.. along with boxing and pankration. I don't know if old = traditional though.

                        Define traditional.


                          I wait for the day one hundred years in the future when the UFC has become an all-grappling competition and some oik comes along and wins because he does this thing where he takes the knuckles on his hand and projects them very quickly into his opponents' face, catching them completely off guard as they are trained entirely in submission and submission defense. I predict, then, that Blade Windu's great grandson will argue telepathically that "striking is clearly superior to grappling" and that "if a BJJ player beats a Ving Tzun fighter, he's not really doing BJJ."

                          Also, Anthony, I haven't seen GJJ in Action, but I find it fair conjecture that neither of the parties intended to severely injure their opponents. Also, you talk about punching from the mount as if it were the domain of a grappler, considering how only grapplers have the mystical ki power (a blind reverence seen in grappling adherents previously only known to traditional strikers) to end up on top of an opponent when both are on the ground, when this is not the case.

                          At any rate, the question is of effectiveness, and effectiveness has to have a context. In the ring, grappling is effective, because the parties have no intent to kill each other and there are rules, written or otherwise. Thus, striking is neutered in the ring, despite its advantages in other fora, and with the help of bullshit like "95% of fights go to the ground" (when "fights" are police activity and "go to the ground" is an arrest being made), people get the gross misconception that grappling is 'more effective' than striking.

                          Sure, at the end of the day, I agree with kuntaokid, that the best fighers need to know enough of both to get along. But until the nutrider is extinct, he needs an ideological counterbalance, which I am obliged to supply.


                            Since all the moves in BJJ can be found in asian arts perhaps BJJ is a TMA. Damn am I thinking out loud again. A TMA who can not adapt to a grappler/striker/weapon has not been training correctly and should beat his /her instructor with something heavy for stealing there money

                            In the fog of doubt and bad technique, pain clears the view to proper technique.


                              Very funny...and true, but the nutrider HAS a counterbalance. Go read some of the recent posts in the TMA forum. And it's only fair to point out that the rules to which you refer also include stand-ups and timed rounds, which only hurts the grappler immensely. Look at Genki Sudo's recent fight against Duane Ludwig.

                              In any case, this is a totally dessicated subject. You shouldn't even stoop to it. just be yourself Merc, don't worry about being a counterbalance...Come on guy! *Friendly punch in the shoulder* Give us a *cough*!

                              "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."



                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.