Anti-Grappling

[jubaji]

They feel as though you can only successfully defend against "ground n' slow dance" by rolling around on the floor yourself.

Are you really unaware that everytime you go to the "rolling around" "slow dance" "hugging" comments that you reveal just how ignorant and afraid of grappling you are? Its really very obvious, and you just keep reinforcing the image.

[jubaji]

I've been getting a lot of positive feedback about this topic. People interested in SD are realizing that they were tailoring their training in grappling to a greater degree than necessary.

And that's why there will always be plenty of Videos, seminars, and t-shirts to sell, because there is never a shortage of desperate fools looking for a shortcut that doesn't exist.


You're the same type that buys those 'learn a language in 10 days!' tapes, or gobbles down diet pills instead of working out to lose weight (sorry, but getting that fat out of your head is going to take a lot of hard work).


Those things sell really well too!

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Shamrock then did the same to Severn, who sought ground combat, by catching him closing in and choked him out. Yet another example of how anti-grappling shut down another potential ground grappling attempt.

jubaji already caught this one but i've got to highlight it again. this is exactly what i was saying that the term anti-grappling is useless. a choke is a grappling technique, period.

you're redefining terms, saying grappling=ground-grappling (i don't think you've said this flat out, but that conclusion is directly extrapolated from saying that "anti-grappling" means avoiding going to the ground), then yelling at people for not stepping in line, saying "such and such has been established." saying it doesn't make it true. as much as i love The Colbert Report, we don't live in "wikeality."

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

I'd just call it sprawl n brawl.

[Uke]

I mentioned several thousand post ago that Helio didnt do his family a favor by showing their variation of JJJ to the general public, in fact he screwed them for 5 minutes of fame in the long run of Martial arts...Some people understood the ground game before and they had an advantage, now its just the tool everyone tries to use for any job...

Very true.

[Uke]

jubaji already caught this one but i've got to highlight it again. this is exactly what i was saying that the term anti-grappling is useless. a choke is a grappling technique, period.

you're redefining terms, saying grappling=ground-grappling (i don't think you've said this flat out, but that conclusion is directly extrapolated from saying that "anti-grappling" means avoiding going to the ground), then yelling at people for not stepping in line, saying "such and such has been established." saying it doesn't make it true. as much as i love The Colbert Report, we don't live in "wikeality."

But at what point did you come to believe that anti-grappling doesn't have grappling in it? This is yet another case of reading comprehension vs what is written. While you're caught up in trying to make a case for grappling being a part of anti-grappling, that is an established fact since the beginning of this topic.

Anti-grappling isn't defined by grappling or striking. Its defined by examining towards what end you use specific techniques. While a grappler would use his grappling skills to make it a ground bout, someone using anti-grappling would use punching, kicking, kneeing, elbows, sprawls, clawing, neck manipulations, pressure points, stomps, biting, eye gouge, hair pulling, or weapons to make sure that fight didn't go to the ground. And if it did, he'd use any and every dirty technique he could to get up off the ground. You know ... the techniques that the UFC/Pride strictly prohibit and therefore you don't see in the ring? Anybody remember who won that fight between Joe San vs Keith Hackney? After that match hitting in the balls became prohibited.

Its always the way of those who can't/won't/don't understand to say that something is "useless". Anti-grappling isn't re-inventing the wheel. Its putting the focus back on practical training so that people who don't know better won't be sucked into thinking that they have to spend years doing "ground n' slow dance" to be able to defeat a grappler. Either you understand that or you just can't read.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

But at what point did you come to believe that anti-grappling doesn't have grappling in it? This is yet another case of reading comprehension vs what is written. While you're caught up in trying to make a case for grappling being a part of anti-grappling, that is an established fact since the beginning of this topic.

well that's another problem, many different people use the term anti-grappling with different intentions. by "anti-grappling" you don't mean the same thing the Wing Chun crowd does, so why use the same phrase.
at a certain point some miscomprehension is understandable, and comprehension isn't a burden placed solely on the reader, the ideas expressed must be clear. i'm not even addressing the concept of anti-grappling as you percieve it, i'm addressing the use of a misleading term and asking how useful the term has been in communicating your ideas. this thread would answer that question "not very useful at all." the best label for what you're talking about might be something like "anti-ground-grappling mindset." but even then, why get into it. everyone knows what grappling means and what striking means. this mindset doesn't need a label. even the pure bjj guys here have said they know the limits of ground grappling in sd situations.

i take no issue with the idea of wanting to stay on your feet in a street encounter and being able to finish your business on the ground as swiftly as possible if it does go there.

Its always the way of those who can't/won't/don't understand to say that something is "useless". Anti-grappling isn't re-inventing the wheel. Its putting the focus back on practical training so that people who don't know better won't be sucked into thinking that they have to spend years doing "ground n' slow dance" to be able to defeat a grappler. Either you understand that or you just can't read.

i put the word in bold and italics to be very clear i was calling the term useless, not the ideas and techniques.

[Uke]

I'd just call it sprawl n brawl.

I wouldn't. Here's a much better example of using grappling for anti-ground grappling purposes: Judo Gene Lebell. Gene teaches dozens of ways to defend shoots, clinches and takedowns that don't require laying on the ground. He's a dirty grappler who has more than enough skill to stay up on his feet during a fight, and you can learn the same from him or his students.

Gene won't just clinch with you, he'll pull your hair. He'll bit you. He'll punch you. He'll slap you. He'll stomp you. You have to see how he uses neck manipulations to stop a shoot! He's a dirty fighter and the epitome of the direction that anti-grappling should go in. You have no idea how many fighters recommend learning from him to counter BJJ as a whole, not just the takedowns.

Now with that said, Gene Lebell is a grappler regardless of all the other gutter fighting qualities he may possess. If you wanted to become a street grappler, what HE does is the way to do it. Not rolling around on the pavement looking for submissions. His standing grappling is way beyond what you'll see in NHB or from collegiate wrestlers and BJJ players. He also acknowledges that there is a much different way about going about self defense than laying on the ground.

I know that a couple of people here NEEDED to attempt to make this topic about ALL grappling, but that's only because once they realized that Anti-grappling is geared towards countering GROUND GRAPPLING attempts, they had nothing left to say. Except for jubajackass and his marketing scheme conspiracy theory.

The only standup grappling you see in NHB is guillotine chokes and half assed sacrifice takedowns where the fighter falls with the guy he's throwing.

That's why it isn't just sprawl and brawl, bro. The sprawl is just one tool, and SD fighters don't brawl.

You da man, 7r14ngL3Ch0k3

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

Hahaha, no youre da man. Honestly, i really dont see what all the debate's about on this thread.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Hahaha, no youre da man. Honestly, i really dont see what all the debate's about on this thread.

i don't think there is much debate if we could all get on the same page with the terms we're using. the problems seem to be in clearly communicating more than anything else, which is why i we should have low tolerance for terms that are misleading or just plain inaccurate labels.

[BoarSpear]

You have to see how he uses neck manipulations to stop a shoot!

...

"See"? Don't you want his autograph?

[Uke]

well that's another problem, many different people use the term anti-grappling with different intentions. by "anti-grappling" you don't mean the same thing the Wing Chun crowd does, so why use the same phrase.
at a certain point some miscomprehension is understandable, and comprehension isn't a burden placed solely on the reader, the ideas expressed must be clear. i'm not even addressing the concept of anti-grappling as you percieve it, i'm addressing the use of a misleading term and asking how useful the term has been in communicating your ideas. this thread would answer that question "not very useful at all." the best label for what you're talking about might be something like "anti-ground-grappling mindset." but even then, why get into it. everyone knows what grappling means and what striking means. this mindset doesn't need a label. even the pure bjj guys here have said they know the limits of ground grappling in sd situations.

Its the responsibility of the poster who intends to contribute on a topic to read what's been written so not to rehash the same point over and over again. Just because I'm willing to reply to your posts with some depth doesn't mean that I'm going to re-write every point and fact that's been introduced so far. I don't mean to sound rude at all, but it takes away from the discussion by having to go over and over the same point. I'm constantly put in the position of going over points that have been discussed because people jump in wherever they want to.

The term "antigrappling" isn't as important as what it represents. I intentionally keep that term because 1) I know its killing jubajackass. And 2) I'm not willing to alter terms or names for other people's comfort. You understand what's being discussed, and if you've read the topic like you should have in order to formulate an informed opinion, the term shouldn't play a role in your judgement either at this point.

i take no issue with the idea of wanting to stay on your feet in a street encounter and being able to finish your business on the ground as swiftly as possible if it does go there.

You've made that clear before, which is why its silly for you to focus on the term rather than what the actual thing accomplishes.

i put the word in bold and italics to be very clear i was calling the term useless, not the ideas and techniques.

Furthermore The_Judo_Jibboo, the term is necessary because it isn't just grappling, nor is it just striking. It isn't just takedown defense as it also addresses how to get up and back to your feet in the event you're taken down. Anti-grappling is the method of negating newaza(ground) combat and all of its attempts to go there. You don't have to like the name because you've already stated that you agree with the focus and philosophy. And isn't the substance more important than the label you slap on it?

Great talking with ya as usual, The_Judo_Jibboo.

[jubaji]

jubaji already caught this one but i've got to highlight it again. this is exactly what i was saying that the term anti-grappling is useless. a choke is a grappling technique, period.

you're redefining terms, saying grappling=ground-grappling (i don't think you've said this flat out, but that conclusion is directly extrapolated from saying that "anti-grappling" means avoiding going to the ground), then yelling at people for not stepping in line, saying "such and such has been established." saying it doesn't make it true. as much as i love The Colbert Report, we don't live in "wikeality."

Well said.

[jubaji]

Anti-grappling isn't defined by grappling or striking.

LOL! Right, it isn't defined by anything because its nothing, and no matter how many times pUke gets it tatooed on his ass it will remain an empty meaningless term used to dupe the likes of him into this or that program, product, or sponsorship.

[jubaji]

so that people who don't know better won't be sucked into thinking that they have to spend years doing "ground n' slow dance" to be able to defeat a grappler. Either you understand that or you just can't read.

See post #301.