how much ground for the street?

[jubaji]

Learning basic escapes and reversals is just fine. being able to get up quickly if you've been taken down. If one must specialize in any one aspect of ground submission wrestling for the purpose of street violence, I would say that would be it.

The problem with that attitude is that you are very unlikely to get very good at part of something without studying all of that something.

[Tant01]

Judo STICK.

The best thing to hit people with is the Earth, Judo is an excellent tool to teach you the skills you'll need to accomplish it.

Makes you wonder about the Japanese names of things that translate to words in English like "Mountain Storm"

Yama Arashi -- Mountain Storm

It's a BIG stick...

[kingoftheforest]

I used that in class just yesterday.

[Tom Yum]

The problem with that attitude is that you are very unlikely to get very good at part of something without studying all of that something.

Jack of all trades, master of none?

[Uke]

Why is that? Haven't you been saying the opposite for years?

Well I can see how one can come to those conclusions when they only read and quote parts of what was written. The best way to be helpful here is to repost for accuracy.

I think that because ground wrestling seems like a safer place to work from the majority of sport competitors seek to specialize in that range. The success of the guard is undeniable in BJJ and MMA events, and in MMA once someone gets rocked often times they seek safety in that place.

The problem with that attitude is that you are very unlikely to get very good at part of something without studying all of that something.

Well, when what you what to be good at is "not pretending" then certain elements will play into your training, and then that training will be built around those elements as a means to an end ... in this case getting up off the ground and being mobile and aware. As long as you specialize in pretending you'll have limitless options until the event happens to you.

Its fine to become very good at escaping positions and reversing holds, locks and chokes if that is what you aim to do in real confrontations.

[Uke]

Jack of all trades, master of none?

Well we can't all specialize in staring people down from across a room, fantasizing about what we would do to them after they poked us in the chest, Tom. Some people just don't have the talent for that.

[jubaji]

Its fine to become very good at escaping positions and reversing holds, locks and chokes if that is what you aim to do in real confrontations.

Hmmm, let me try this again: You aren't going to become very good at those things without training grappling in whole. Sorry if that is inconvenient.

[jubaji]

Well we can't all specialize in staring people down from across a room, fantasizing about what we would do to them .

Really? That's sort of what I thought non-full sparring, deliberately staying out of shape, and carrying around a knife you use as an excuse but have never actually used was all about. I guess I must have been mistaken.

[Tom Yum]

Well we can't all specialize in staring people down from across a room, fantasizing about what we would do to them after they poked us in the chest, Tom. Some people just don't have the talent for that.

I'm not one for ego-based barroom brawling and I do an even worse internet tough guy impersonation.

As far as the original topic is concerned, I think a good 6-months, training 4 times a week in any grappling system would give someone a good base surviving a one on one pure grappling altercation.

[TigerClaw]

Hi guys

I'm sure we'd all agree that street attacks/scenarios would almost 100% start with people standing on their feet. Of course they can also go to the ground and obviously the more ground training you have the better off you will be; but I'm wondering for the street, what level of ground skill would one be advised to attain before deciding to really focus on the stand up stuff?

I ask this with busy people in mind. ie juggling fulltime work, family, home responsibilities; not just having as much time as you want to train.

What would be your opinion. A blue belt level of knowledge? Purple? More?

I suggest you learn Chinese Kung Fu and you wont need to stay on the ground long, and learn fast effective way to escape. You may want to consider attacking the vital areas of your attacker, for fast escapes.

Again, all this depends on the level of attack you have towards you. if the attacker is not skilled at all on the ground the techniques will be different than a skilled grappler attacking you.

[Ben Grimm]

Not this again..... Let's use (and I hate to use this example) Bruce Lee as an example. He started in WC, but he added judo and wrestling amonst other things to create JKD. Now he was a TCMA stylist at first but he realised he needed more. So troll, STFU!

[Tom Yum]

Not this again..... Let's use (and I hate to use this example) Bruce Lee as an example. He started in WC, but he added judo and wrestling amonst other things to create JKD. Now he was a TCMA stylist at first but he realised he needed more. So troll, STFU!

Wrestling and judo are traditional martial arts. Wrestling dates back to ancient Egypt, then to Greece etc. Judo was created from Jiujitsu during the 1800's - Jiujitsu being a purely Japanese art probably originating around 1000 AD?

[Clubber Lang]

To offer my views on the original question:

BJJ is a superb art/sport and a very strong foundation for grappling - street, mat, period. However, you are right in your assumption that the study of this art alone will leave gaps in terms of an all round self-protection arsenal. 5 years and blue belt level, I'm pretty sure your ground basics are sound. From here, if your focus is street, I would suggest some crosstraining in weaponry and stand up empty hand to round out your ability.

I don't think your question should be "how much ground", I think its more a case of how much else may be missing.

[kingoftheforest]

I really don't want to get into another huge debate over this. So I'll say this much and be gone.

TCMA's or at least a lot of them developed from a form of Mongolian wrestling, where the combatants would wear horned helmets and have their hands tied behind them.

The object was to gore your opponent using just your legs body and head.

The hands were used in actual "war" type combat, when you lost you weapons.

It was a type of grappling, and can be found in most TCMA techniques in one form or another.

Shaolin the current "king shit" of all kung-fu will tell you that in each technique there is, a lock, a strike, and a throw.

They're all there if you look for them.

[Clubber Lang]

TCMA's or at least a lot of them developed from a form of Mongolian wrestling, where the combatants would wear horned helmets and have their hands tied behind them. The object was to gore your opponent using just your legs body and head. The hands were used in actual "war" type combat, when you lost you weapons.

It was a type of grappling, and can be found in most TCMA techniques in one form or another.

I'm not sure I understand the relavence.

The Queensbury Rules evolve from a brutal method of bare fist Boxing involving headbutts, forearm strikes and elbows. But thats not how you will be taught if you study the art today, so what difference does it make?

Savate came from a practice of French sailors and pirates tying people up and torturing them for sport by kicking them with hard toed shoes in vital areas. But thats not how you will be taught if you study the art today, so what difference does it make?

Various systems of Silat and Kali were developed as dances or specific forms to be done at night in the crop fields, so that the Spanish would not know they were forms of fighting. But thats not how you will be taught if you study the art today, so what difference does it make?

If I walked into a TCMA school today, I won't be rolling around in a Mongolian horned helmet trying to gore my opponent. Every martial art is only as effective as what it offers the person who walks into the class right now in 2008/9, for their current needs and the current environment. What it may or may not have offered several hundred years ago, is irrelavent.