Which grappling art should I do?

[kingoftheforest]

ANYONE who has grappled knows that you are more likely to avoid being taken down to the ground against your will if you have a grappling background.

If someone's intent is to grapple you and their only intent is to grapple you, then unless you stop their initial attack, which would me ending the fight in 1 or 2 blows, then it is going to the ground.

This is if we are talking about a real fight and not a duel in the ring, which limits what you're defense may be.

Grappling is taught and learned for SD purposes so you know what to do should you face a grappler AND wind up on the ground.

Everyone here seems to forget that the other participant in a fight adds input too. If a person grabs you and his intent is to hit the ground with you and he has ANY idea of what he is doing it's going to the ground.

training grappling is to give you incite on how to make the other grappler take the brunt of the fall, and what to do once down on the ground to either end the altercation quickly or get back up as fast as you can.

If you are training for the ring the methods you use are going to be different because you have a rule book to follow and you are dueling not fighting.

If you breed too many specifics in your training you breed in weakness. This is proven in nature time and time again.
It all depends on weather you want to be a street mutt that survives or a cocker spaniel that runs into the glass doors.

[TTEscrima]

You have a unique blend of narcissism and ignorance that is unbecoming. You should work on it (after you work on your vocabulary skills).

Yawn. You can always tell when people are unable to intelligently defend their position when they resort to (or in some case rely solely upon) spell checking, name calling, insults and evasion.

[USArmyBJJ]

Its fairly clear you're asking for us to explain why it's better to stay on our feet than go to the ground against multiple opponents.

Please provide some sort of evidence as to where I said that. Considering that the entirety of the first half of my post was dedicating to arguing that a grappling background would help you avoid going to the ground, and learn how to get up once you're put there, I would think that a semi-rational human being would understand that I think it is necessary to prove why RBSD and TMA are better than "grappling" for staying on your feet.

Anyone who would ask that question has obviously never been in an actual fight against one person much less multiple opponents.

I've already stated such. But hey, awesome response!

ANYONE who has grappled HAS to admit that often times you get tangled up and wind up on the ground with your opponent.

ANYONE who has grappled knows that you are more likely to avoid being taken down to the ground against your will if you have a grappling background.

It would seem that one of the first things anyone would want to do if they want to put a beating on you with their buddies is take you to the ground. See, I said that in my very first post. That should have been another contextual clue that my point was that "grappling" (the term I used, as opposed to your using "ground fighting") helps you avoid going to the ground.

Only a fool would deny that grappling increases the likelihood of winding up on the ground,

Then make that argument - but don't avoid the argument by saying that I said something that I did not say.

Also, consider the possibility that you might end up grappling no matter what when 3 or 4 guys are grabbing at you.

and only a fool would argue the ground is a good place to be against multiple opponents,

I agree. Luckily for me, I never made that argument.

BTW, the reason I emphasized going to the ground is because attempting to grapple multiple opponents virtually assures your going to be on the ground.

By the way, the reason I emphasized that grappling might be better for avoiding going to the ground is because the ground is a bad place to be in a fight with multiple opponents.

It is incumbent (merriam-webster dictionary defines incumbent as one that occupies a particular position or place)

You looked up incumbent as a noun. Incumbent as an adjective means, "necessary for someone as a duty."

You seem to have very serious vocabulary issues. Have you ever considered taking a class on that? You thought, in another thread, that "combat" only referred to armed military combat. You thought that grappling only referred to ground fighting. You thought that incumbent only referred to political incumbents.

I would hope that someone of your advanced age would have a basic understanding of English vocabulary. Seriously, a class would really help you out a lot. Just a thought.

I'll explain this again, so you don't get it confused. I never said that going to the ground is a good idea in a fight against multiple people. I said that learning grappling might help you avoid getting in the ground situation and that it is "incumbent" (again, remember adjective incumbent) upon others to prove that TMA or RBSD attacks are more effective than grappling attacks at avoiding going to the ground.

you actually seem to need for someone to prove that grappling multiple opponents is less effective than other means of dealing with them...

No, I don't. See above. I want you to prove that studying RBSD and TMA are better than studying grappling for the purposes of surviving a fight with multiple opponents. Keep in mind the fact that I said neither is effective.

well, how many people can you grapple at the same time?

I would imagine just one. How many people can you punch at the same time?

Can you grapple more people at once than you can run from? I think not...

No, of course not. That's why I said (in another thread, I think) that "Track and Field" is the best art to learn.

Can you grapple more people at once than you can strike? I think not, can you evade more people at once while grappling than when not grappling? I think not...

I agree. But it might not be your choice whether to grapple. You might want to consider that, even with your RBSD or TMA or grappling or whatever experience, you may not dictate the entirety of the fight. It might turn out that the guy with four of his buddies gets to dictate what happens in the fight. Just consider it.

Can you watch multiple opponents for weapons more effectively when grappling than other times?

No. But I don't know if you have much of a chance standing up or grappling in that scenario.

You have a unique blend of narcissism and ignorance that is unbecoming. You should work on it (after you work on your vocabulary skills).

[USArmyBJJ]

Please enlighten us as to what the main objective of a standing grapple is. To my knowledge it is to place your opponent on the ground.

It depends on why you're studying grappling. Many MMA strikers study grappling as a means of avoiding going to the ground and learning how to quickly get up should they be put there.

Ergo it is synonymous with ground fighting.

No, it isn't.

[jubaji]

you actually seem to need for someone to prove that grappling multiple opponents is less effective for me than other means of dealing with them...well, how many people can I grapple at the same time? About the same number that I can fight standing up, isn't it? Can I grapple more people at once than I can run from? I think not...Might I have no choice anyway depending on circumstances and where I happen to be? Of course. Is it more likely that I will end up in a grappling situation against multiple opponents regardless of what I 'want' anyway? Of course it is. Can I grapple more people at once than I can strike? I think not, can I evade more people at once while grappling than when not grappling? I think not...Can I watch multiple opponents for weapons more effectively when grappling than other times? I think not...Can I create distance from multiple opponents more effectively when the weapon appears when grappling? I think not...the point being that I'm not very good at grappling and therefore not as confident as with my striking, but against multiple opponents my chances are just about as bad either way.

Fixed that for ya...

[jubaji]

Please enlighten us as to what the main objective of a standing grapple is. To my knowledge it is to place your opponent on the ground.

Ergo it is synonymous with ground fighting.

Neverending pissing contest aside, this just isn't logical.

[TTEscrima]

I realized how bad your reading comprehension is. I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground. In fact, the main argument I made was that a grappler is more likely to be able to avoid going to the ground. Please re-read the post and see how incorrect you are.

My reading comprehension is fine, you just can't face the reality of your own position.

2) It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better

Its fairly clear you're asking for us to explain why it's better to stay on our feet than go to the ground against multiple opponents. Anyone who would ask that question has obviously never been in an actual fight against one person much less multiple opponents. ANYONE who has grappled HAS to admit that often times you get tangled up and wind up on the ground with your opponent. Only a fool would deny that grappling increases the likelihood of winding up on the ground, and only a fool would argue the ground is a good place to be against multiple opponents, ANY techniques or style can cause you to find yourself on the ground, but grappling definitely increases those chances. BTW, the reason I emphasized going to the ground is because attempting to grapple multiple opponents virtually assures you're going to be on the ground.


Are you capable of understanding what YOU posted?

2) It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better

If you can remember posting that little gem lets analyze it.


It is incumbent (merriam-webster dictionary defines incumbent as one that occupies a particular position or place) on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to PROVE (merriam-webster dictionary defines prove as a verb used to to establish the existence, truth, or validity of) that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily BETTER (merriam-webster dictionary defines BETTER as: more advantageous or effective <a better solution>)


Then you come back with

You're right. Proof is something we generally try to avoid in these debates. Perhaps you should try to avoid mischaracterizing other people's posts? Just a thought.

And yet you said it was incumbent on us to prove..., but now you're accusing me of "mischaracterizing" your post? ROFLMAO


Grappling is a form of embracing JR, whether you remain standing or not you are attempting to control an opponent by placing placing your hands upon him, you actually seem to need for someone to prove that grappling multiple opponents is less effective than other means of dealing with them...well, how many people can you grapple at the same time? Can you grapple more people at once than you can run from? I think not...Can you grapple more people at once than you can strike? I think not, can you evade more people at once while grappling than when not grappling? I think not...Can you watch multiple opponents for weapons more effectively when grappling than other times? I think not...Can you create distance from multiple opponents more effectively when the weapon appears when grappling? I think not...

[kingoftheforest]

Yes, it's clear that s/he doesn't understand that "grappling" is not synonymous with "ground fighting." It's funny how the most ignorant people are also the most sure of themselves.

Please enlighten us as to what the main objective of a standing grapple is. To my knowledge it is to place your opponent on the ground.

Ergo it is synonymous with ground fighting. I personally have never seen an altercation in the ring or in the street that started with standing grappling and didn't end on the ground.

[jubaji]

He scores very high on both counts!

[USArmyBJJ]

I'm sorry you're getting a crash course in TTExcrement's emotional problems.

Yes, it's clear that s/he doesn't understand that "grappling" is not synonymous with "ground fighting." It's funny how the most ignorant people are also the most sure of themselves.

[jubaji]

I'm sorry you're getting a crash course in TTExcrement's emotional problems.

[USArmyBJJ]

Guess you realized just how stupid you sounded eh?

I realized how bad your reading comprehension is. I never said that I needed proof that you're better off on your feet than on the ground. In fact, the main argument I made was that a grappler is more likely to be able to avoid going to the ground. Please re-read the post and see how incorrect you are.

[TTEscrima]

You're right. Proof is something we generally try to avoid in these debates. Perhaps you should try to avoid mischaracterizing other people's posts? Just a thought.

Guess you realized just how stupid you sounded eh?

[USArmyBJJ]

The fact that you're demanding "proof" that you're better off on your feet than on the ground against multiple opponents says it all.

You're right. Proof is something we generally try to avoid in these debates. Perhaps you should try to avoid mischaracterizing other people's posts? Just a thought.

[TTEscrima]

2) It is incumbent on those claiming that grappling is ineffective for fighting multiple opponents to prove that their particular tactics for fighting multiple opponents are necessarily better

The fact that you're demanding "proof" that you're better off on your feet than on the ground against multiple opponents says it all.