Anti-Grappling

[knifethrower]

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

......................

[jubaji]

anti-logic-ing

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.

And more ignorance, and more and more and more....


Let's see..."attacking"..."close quarters"...nah, that could never result in the situation going to the ground...

I like this part: "There simply isn't time" LOL! It just takes so darn long!


"There's no time" and "offensive close quarters can't go to the ground" and "if I just keep attacking, there's no way grappling can come into it" LOL! The 1980's called, they want their assumptions back.

[jubaji]

And in a way, the way the Gracies use their jujitsu, it is in a way anti-striking.

LOL! Someone's gonna be selling that CD sooner or later! And pUke boy will be first in line to overpay for it!

[jubaji]

Great response. We all understand your position better now. .

I hope you don't understand. That's about the only excuse you've got for the level of stupidity you regularly display here in your desperate bid for semantic spin.



You notice in almost all judo matches how one person throws the other and just remains standing there?

No? OF COURSE NOT, IDIOT.

[jubaji]

we're not speaking about "all grappling", We're speaking about ground grappling/newaza. You missed that?

What no one who has any experience with grappling could miss is your ignorance, inexperience, and desperation in clinging to your empty, meaningless little slogan.



Maybe the next round of T-shirts printed should say 'ANTI-GUARD' instead LOL.

[Hardball]

Well inspite of the contention; one would have to admit this is an excellent thread. I spent an hour yesterday trying to read it all but still could not get through the entire thread.

[BoarSpear]

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

Any idiot without training can close a 21 foot gap before you can draw a FIREARM and use it...A trained person can close about 30 feet...Only idiots assume they know what their opponent is capable of...That rule has ZERO to do with knives which can be deployed MUCH faster than firearms....People hear one rule and extrapolate it to mean many things it doesn't. That rule also doesn't apply to professionals who don't carry their weapons like the police.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Any idiot without training can close a 21 foot gap before you can draw a FIREARM and use it...A trained person can close about 30 feet...Only idiots assume they know what their opponent is capable of...That rule has ZERO to do with knives which can be deployed MUCH faster than firearms....People hear one rule and extrapolate it to mean many things it doesn't. That rule also doesn't apply to professionals who don't carry their weapons like the police.

ok ok, i don't want to hi-jack this thread for this purpose. if anyone else cares to see if the logic all adds up they can check out the other thread i alluded to, "bank employee stops thief" or some such.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

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.

ok, you answered my next question before i even asked it. not to put words in your mouth, but it seems you're using the term "anti-grappling" to refer to a strategy or even a mindset rather than a set curriculum. the man who employs striking techniques or grappling techniques (or ideally, a combination) to stay standing is using "anti-grappling". i could accept that application of the term (though i think it's a touch misleading) but the problem is that is not how Wing Chun schools for example apply the term. we've all probably seen the clips of Wing Chun teachers demonstrating their "anti-grappling" against wing chun students who don't know how to grapple! they present their anti-grappling as a set of techniques that eliminates the need for you to grapple, but if i've interpreted your assertion correctly you acknowledge that "anti-grappling" must be at least part grappling.

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.

don't have to, but it would certainly improve the grappler's odds of success if he understood the striker's game. the man who taught the Gracie's newaza did study striking because he was extremely interested in learning the best ways to close the gap safely and impose his will on the fight. i think this attitude has been inevitably diminished by emphasis on pure grappling competition, leading to the kamikaze approach to closing the gap and smothering punches that you've referred to.
but fighting, like most things, swings steadily back and forth along a spectrum, and alot of people who benefit from having things going their way for a while like to pretend that the goal has been reached, like things aren't going to swing right back again. yes, the Gracies lost their dominance and some fighters have employed effective strategies for beating pure grapplers. all that means is you're going to start seeing better takedowns, better setups to rob fighters of their chance to sprawl, and better control once they're in their range.
it's all a big pendulum my man

I think another important lesson that's come out of MMA competition is if you put a pure striker (i'm talkin' nothing but Muay Thai, for example) into the ring with a pure grappler (not one boxing lesson) the striker can keep him at bay for a while, but 90% of the time the grappler will get his hands on him and impose his game plan for the rest of the fight. There's less room for error as the pure striker. as long as the grappler has a good chin he can take a few and bide his time, but once it's in grappling range a pure striker is more or less doomed. ( i know this is not taking into account weapons in street encounters, but i've got a point to make about the semantics... i think )

again, if i've got your gist, a sprawl is a grappling technique applied with an anti-grappling goal. but why do we need the middle man? in a fight you can strike and grapple. adding more terms with shades of meaning and application causes more confusion than clarification.

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

hey, i love a civil discussion, thanks for the reply

[Tom Yum]

Any idiot without training can close a 21 foot gap before you can draw a FIREARM and use it...A trained person can close about 30 feet.[/IMG]

That reminds me of the USMC recon knife vid that you posted a while back. That's good stuff.

[jubaji]

in a fight you can strike and grapple. adding more terms causes more confusion than clarification.

Exactly. The impulse to make up 'new' terms to describe what has always been there and to try and impose arbitrary labels on both striking and grappling that even by their own definition end up meaning nothing is an effort on the part of some to convince the desperately insecure that they have some shortcut to sell them.


And, as it has always been, there are $uckers just lining up to pay.

[jubaji]

nothing so dangerous as...

Its also important to understand that newaza, the ground grappling aspect of jujitsu, was ONLY developed once weapons were outlawed in Japan.

More ignorance from the pUke...

[Uke]

Exactly. The impulse to make up 'new' terms to describe what has always been there and to try and impose arbitrary labels on both striking and grappling that even by their own definition end up meaning nothing is an effort on the part of some to convince the desperately insecure that they have some shortcut to sell them.


And, as it has always been, there are $uckers just lining up to pay.

Wow. It took you 5 more posts of saying absolutely nothing to satisfy your need to be seen on this page of this topic.

Still clinging on to the idea that someone is selling something, Bunny? Sounds like you put your faith into learning from tapes and correspondence courses and got burned when they didn't mail you your official "ninja slayer" certificate.

We all understand that anti-grappling is personally offensive to you because it makes your own personal system of combat, "B.U.N.N.Y."(Beat Up Ninjas Near You) seem less important and dominant in your mind, but sitting there with your hands over you ears and saying loudly "it doesn't exist ... it doesn't exist" doesn't help your cause.

[jubaji]

We all understand that anti-grappling is personally offensive to you .

What's offensive to anyone who has put in the real time, effort, work, and blood to actually train are idiots like you who chase after the mirage of a shortcut instead of just getting your ass to work like eveyone who has ever done anything seriously and well in the history of mankind has!

[jubaji]

Still clinging on to the idea that someone is selling something?

Why wouldn't someone sell, with easy marks like you tripping over yourselves to buy?