Anti-Grappling

[Uke]

Yeah, 'cause when two judoka fight you always see...oh, wait a minute...

Great response. We all understand your position better now.
You entire argument is dead. You've predicated everything you have to say here on people spending money on something that is free. And what makes you so sad is that even though that point has been established, you cling to it because you have nothing, and I mean nothing else to say.

You've got to learn a new dance, Bunny. The one you've got now is old.

[jubaji]

Like it or not, people including many BJJ practitioners are realizing that being on your back anywhere but on the mat is a horrible place to be.

And there it is again; pUke's assumption that all 'grappling' equates to 'lying on your back' (or his other favorites, 'rolling around' and 'hugging' - the kid's got problems) which leaves him free to imagine that all of the rest of grappling can be packaged into some catchy slogan to give him false confidence.

[jubaji]

ignorant

The myth that most ground grapplers would prefer to remain standing while his opponent goes to the ground refers to judoka, as judoka are one of the types of grapplers that place importance of staying on their feet..

Yeah, 'cause when two judoka fight you always see...oh, wait a minute...

[jubaji]

so is the sprawl grappling or anti-grappling? how 'bout this one: a grappler throws a punch combo to get his opponent's attention up, then shoots a double leg takedown. is the combo he used to set up striking or "anti-striking"? unless you call those punches "anti-striking" then i don't think you can call the sprawl anti-grappling.
strikers grapple, grapplers strike, what's the big deal?

The only big deal is with people who buy into slogans and catch phrases (for the pleasure of giving someone their money) and who then feel they have to defend a semantic phantasm.

[Uke]

The_Judo_Jibboo

This comment isn't specifically in response to anything that's been said, just throwing my hat in the ring: you can't fight what you don't understand, and in that sense to study anti-grappling is to study grappling. to paraphrase Uke with a little of my own viewpoint mixed in, a grappler wants to end the fight in the grappling range, and someone interested in "anti-grappling" wants to end it in striking range. but i would say that the knowledge base each one works from is essentially the same. to defend the takedown, you damn well better know how the takedown is executed, and what new options will open up for the guy trying to take you down when you react. when my first judo instructor said one day to the higher belts in the class "ok guys, white belts are fair game to armbar now" you can probably guess i went home with sore elbows. i couldn't see an armbar if it was staring me in the face. i'm sure everyone here has a similar experience they could relate.
this all goes both ways of course. a good shoot takes into account striking ranges and angles.
so is the sprawl grappling or anti-grappling? how 'bout this one: a grappler throws a punch combo to get his opponent's attention up, then shoots a double leg takedown. is the combo he used to set up striking or "anti-striking"? unless you call those punches "anti-striking" then i don't think you can call the sprawl anti-grappling.
strikers grapple, grapplers strike, what's the big deal?

Good post, but I don't agree with everything.

First, grappling is a a part anti-grappling. That wasn't in dispute. So is striking. However anti-grappling is used to prevent ground grappling attempts. Techniques and concepts put together to that end are called anti-grappling.

this all goes both ways of course. a good shoot takes into account striking ranges and angles.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I disagree. Are you implying that in order to perform a good shoot you have to have knowledge or better yet proficiency in striking? If so, that is completely wrong. Most grapplers have very little proficiency at striking.

And in a way, the way the Gracies use their jujitsu, it is in a way anti-striking. They shoot in and smother to avoid STRIKING. Then they go to the guard and tie the man up, further smothering him to avoid STRIKING. Every thing they do is to avoid striking and go right into hugging range to smother strikes. We all know that they aren't afraid to grapple, so we know it isn't an attempt to avoid the other guy's grappling. Their style is designed to avoid, smother and if need be take the least amount of strikes if possible.

That's why the Gracies began to lose with great frequency. They were so caught up with nullifying strikes in a NHB setting that other ground grapplers were able to get the best of them by getting superior positions.

Its also important to understand that newaza, the ground grappling aspect of jujitsu, was ONLY developed once weapons were outlawed in Japan. The Fusen Ruy school of jujitsu came about after the Samurai warrior class no longer existed. There is no coincidence there. No battlefield warrior would willingly place himself on the ground when enemies who are armed with swords, knives and other weapons are around him.

When the Fusen Ryu students defeated Kano and his entire school using newaza techniques, Kano incorporated newaza into his Kodokan curriculum because he felt that he could not afford to be unprepared for techniques that could defeat his entire school. As time passed on, Kano fazed those newaza techniques out of Kodokan Judo, feeling that too many students began focusing on going straight to the floor instead of what was most important in his mind: Achieving the throw.

Maeda was one of the early students who left before the Kodokan had revised the curriculum again so not to focus on the Fusen Ryu techniques.

Hence, we have Gracie Jujitsu. A style who's development came at a time when weapons and warriors were banned in Japan, so styles like Fusen Ryu newaza could thrive in a environment that is much different than our own. We have weapons everywhere in this society. To use a system developed for use in ideal conditions to fight on streets that are full of variables that work against you is foolish to put it mildly.

But thanks for writing a post that you actually put some thought into, The_Judo_Jibboo. That's rare in these parts.

[Uke]

Six consecutive posts with a brilliant display of no technical knowledge. For the guy with the biggest mouth on the forum you sure don't know a lot.

The distinction between ground grappling and anti-grappling has been made and most people who can read understand it.

The myth that most ground grapplers would prefer to remain standing while his opponent goes to the ground refers to judoka, as judoka are one of the types of grapplers that place importance of staying on their feet.

Wrestlers? No.
Sambo? No.
MMA? No.
BJJ? No.

Even schools who don't necessarily agree with going to the ground have incorporated elements of BJJ in their ground curriculum, but have gone as far as to put their backs on the ground for submissions like in the case of an armbar. At first, that's what strikers thought they had to do in order to be able to defend themselves against BJJ. However as time went on, people began understanding that a man could defend himself against BJJ and other ground fighting without having to fight like them.

As I put if before, you don't grapple a grappler. Sure, some of what you'd learn to counter submission and takedown techniques would be grappling, but that isn't the point or the focus of your study. It would be to use what you've got to hurt him while shutting down his offense.

But the most unmentioned aspect of anti-grappling is the weapons aspect. There is a skillset that deals with what to do if you find yourself in a ground grappling situation and are armed. It doesn't necessarily have to be with a knife either. Yawara and kubotan work great in those situations as well, but they're just harder tools for poison hand.

Like it or not, people including many BJJ practitioners are realizing that being on your back anywhere but on the mat is a horrible place to be. The focus of anti-grappling is make sure you don't have to go to the ground or at least stay there.

But then again, most fights(defined as guys squaring up from a distance) go to the ground, but most self defense situations don't. There simply isn't time once someone goes on the offensive from close quarters and doesn't stop attacking.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

wait one cotton pickin' minute here

I agree one hundred percent outside of 30 feet....when was the last time you were in a fight 30 feet awy from someone?

ok this isn't really terribly relevant or important in any way, shape or form, but i'm so confused i just had to point this out. a few threads back i was chastised by some for suggesting that a man could close 14 feet quickly enough to pose a threat to an armed man. now it seems that it is being suggested that a gunman needs a 30 foot buffer.
it's entirely possible that there is no contradiction here and i am just tired, but i've looked like an ass before so i'm not risking venturing into any unfamiliar waters

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

This comment isn't specifically in response to anything that's been said, just throwing my hat in the ring: you can't fight what you don't understand, and in that sense to study anti-grappling is to study grappling. to paraphrase Uke with a little of my own viewpoint mixed in, a grappler wants to end the fight in the grappling range, and someone interested in "anti-grappling" wants to end it in striking range. but i would say that the knowledge base each one works from is essentially the same. to defend the takedown, you damn well better know how the takedown is executed, and what new options will open up for the guy trying to take you down when you react. when my first judo instructor said one day to the higher belts in the class "ok guys, white belts are fair game to armbar now" you can probably guess i went home with sore elbows. i couldn't see an armbar if it was staring me in the face. i'm sure everyone here has a similar experience they could relate.
this all goes both ways of course. a good shoot takes into account striking ranges and angles.
so is the sprawl grappling or anti-grappling? how 'bout this one: a grappler throws a punch combo to get his opponent's attention up, then shoots a double leg takedown. is the combo he used to set up striking or "anti-striking"? unless you call those punches "anti-striking" then i don't think you can call the sprawl anti-grappling.
strikers grapple, grapplers strike, what's the big deal?

[jubaji]

Oh and by the way in case you haven't been paying attention, you semantic based argument concerning anti-grappling is no longer valid. We've already established that anti-grappling has to do with ground wrestling or newaza. Takedown defense as well as techniques that enable you get back to your feet.

In other words: GRAPPLING.

You've been duped by nothing more than marketing. Idiot.

[jubaji]

Strikers have changed the tide without having to become grapplers. .

Wrong again. If you are talking about strikers in MMA (which I assume you are) they have for many years now gone about working very hard at improving their grappling skills because its so clear that they need them.

[jubaji]

but no grappler ever believed that

I remember once upon a time when the UFC would have had you believe that ground grapplers were undefeatable .

If you ever believed that then you're an idiot. Oh! I guess you did believe it!

[jubaji]

have you believe that there are a group of techniques geared to prevent going to the ground and getting up off the ground.

Go figure!

Yeah, its called grappling.

Go figure!

[jubaji]

I figured Shamrock's statement might shepard them towards reality. .

LOL. You sap, you are only sheparding everyone with a video and a T-shirt to sell towards your bank account. Congratulations.

[jubaji]

Actually, since the term antigrappling was used and coined before TV was invented

There's one born every minute....

[DickHardman]

A grappler wants to go to the ground. .

not always. there are many grapplers who would try very hard to avoid going to the ground and would rather just send their opponent their instead.