what im thinking is something along the lines of, are the techniques of the old systems enough to handle today's advanced grappling techniques? many cma have throws and other stand up techniques that are basically designed to handle close opponents or rushing opponents but still keep your own but off the dirt. i think that many traditional systems are pretty close to complete, and they teach big curriculums as a side effect. is there room for more? would it be overkill to add groundfighting to a system that already includes, weapons, forms, kicking and striking, qin na soft training, hard, qi gong, conditioning, etc......?

I just saw CHIN-NA: The Grappling Art of Self-Defense Vol.1,2 (http://www.blackbeltmag.com/books/) in the bookstores this month. I imagine shuai chiao fares well in grappling.

But to address your question, I think CMA techniques by and large are good for standing up fighting but wouldn't fare well against a grappling specialist if they started or ended up on the ground. Still, remember that many CMA styles have ripping/clawing/tearing techniques that would be applicable there.

A few years back, I was paired up as the "champion" of my office against the "champion" of another office (we are all paralegals in the Army, and competition is very active for ***** talking rights anywhere we can earn them).

I am a kung fu player, internal arts primarily with little other experience at that time (since I have studied Modern Arnis and Ryu Te Karate). He was a wrestler trained in Iowa by a group of brothers that are apparently very well known for training collegiate champions (I can't remember their names right now, but I'd know them if I heard them).

Anyway.

We started circling each other, and in short order my opponent took me to the ground. I went onto my back immediately, which took him by surprise (he had expected me to keep him from pinning me, but being pinned was the least of my concerns). I began alternatingly freeing my hands, reaching out for vital points, seizing points, etc. I didn't strike him with any force, just lightly touching him repeatedly (we are fellow soldiers, and getting into a real fight is not only a real No Go, but we were friends to boot...).

His side kept pointing out how well he was keeping me pinned beneath him, unable to get him off of me. My side pointed out to his side that every time I was touching him was one strike that he failed to deal with...

When I trained in Modern Arnis in Japan, my instructor was also a big grappling fan. I will admit, were he and I to get into a fight it would get really ugly, and I have absolutely no idea who would win... I would like to say I would, but I know better... The sombo and BJJ stuff he showed me was very nasty, and I know that grapplers do not refrain from striking their downed opponent. However, I believed then, and do so now, that traditional CMA, and traditional MA for that matter, have sufficient skills present in their curricula to allow for dealing with grappling situations.

As noted on some other threads, it all amounts to how you train.

Make friends with grapplers. Invite them to your school or training hall, and play around with some situations. See if you can find ways to apply what you have been taught to that kind of situation. Only then will you really know.

Gambarimasu.

IMHO any striking art doesn't supposed to meant to end up on ground... if CMA(striking) guy couldn't take grappler to his ground(speciality) then he's isn't learning ...
why u need to go to ground with grapplers??
anways CMA=Chinese Martial Arts Shui chao is also CMA which address ground grappling too...

"i think that many traditional systems are pretty close to complete, and they teach big curriculums as a side effect. is there room for more? "
room for improvement...yes...
-TkdWarrior-

I think alot of CMA have such advanced defense that grapplers may find it hard to actually get a CMAist to the ground to begin with. With low stance training and rooting, with the yielding of the body to the power of the attack, and the movement of stances, I think there is alot of defense against rushing opponants or apponants trying to take you to the ground. The Chin Na applications and joint manipulations many CMAs have are also very effective against grapplers, even if you are taken to the ground, which would be somethign you would want to avoid in my opinion, the training on close quarters would come in very useful. The many attacks a CMAist has is a punch that is blocked immediatly going to an elbow blocked goign to a grab, crossing the opponants arms, strike. These I think are very effective against a grappler if used quickly enough.
Can a grappler beat a CMAist, of course. Can a CMAist beat a grappler, of course, it depends on the training, but is traditional CMA lacking in the defense of advanced modern grapplers, I don't believe so. To say that CMA needs to be improved could only be said by someone who has mastered the entire system I would think. How could we sit and say this needs to be improved when we don't even know what else is contained in the system?

Just my humble opinions though,
7sm

Originally posted by TkdWarrior

anways CMA=Chinese Martial Arts Shui chao is also CMA which address ground grappling too...

"i think that many traditional systems are pretty close to complete, and they teach big curriculums as a side effect. is there room for more? "
room for improvement...yes...
-TkdWarrior-

I thought Shui Chao was only a throwing art, not one that dealt with being on the ground. It's primary mission is to throw the person to the ground so hard that they don't get up and you don't go down with them.

I've seen a book recently by an author named Liang that's called Chinese Fast Wrestling (San Shou Kuai Jiao??). It deals with throws and ground fighting. I found it interesting that the ground fight pictures were of another person, though, and not Liang. The ground techniques are very much like BJJ too.

WhiteBirch

Originally posted by lvwhitebir

I thought Shui Chao was only a throwing art, not one that dealt with being on the ground.

Yes, I think this is principally the case--still, it's grappling.


I've seen a book recently by an author named Liang that's called Chinese Fast Wrestling (San Shou Kuai Jiao??). It deals with throws and ground fighting.

I have this and think it has some excellent techniques in it.

OH, I just figured something out, when everyone is talking about grappling I'm thinking "groundfighting", so do you define grappling as "close combat" as some of the other threads have, or what exactly are we talking about ?

7sm

REAL CMA teaches all of it, to include throws and ground fighting.

The reason we don't like going to the ground is because while dealing with the guy who took you to the ground, his friends are getting ready to kick the snot out of you.

But, trust me...we can play very effectively on the ground, if that is where it ends up...

Just because you don't see it on the surface, doesn't mean it isn't there.

:asian:
chufeng

I think of this as including judo and Greco-Roman style standing grappling as well as ground-fighting. (I don't mean judo techniques per se, but that range and that attempt to control the body rather than strike it.) In fact, for 'grappling' I usually think standing grappling, but that's just me.

So what am I missing here? I'm feeling very dense! All I hear is these MMA kids screaming that traditional systems have nothing on grappling, or cannot defend against a good grappler. I always took that as them saying we cannot defend against someone takign us to the ground, but if grappling is to include standing grappling as well, have they never heard of Chin Na? Tai Chi? I mean these would be some of the oldest and in my opinion most effective grappling tools there are.

Again, just my humble opinion,
7sm

I think they are referring to the belief that a traditional martial artist couldn't be taken to the ground. They charge, grab a leg, hang on like a bulldog, and wait till the person falls.

I don't really care what a MMA person says or does.

His overconfidence is my advantage...

The more people who think of me as a weakling, the better my advantage when it comes to surprising someone who attacks me.

:asian:
chufeng

in my opinion it depends on the martial artists involved in the fight
also in my opinion grappeling isnt the best for fighting groups so if i was fighting 2 on 2 i would chose 2 people using an older nongrappeling system over 2 grappelers

yet in a 1 on 1 match the grappeler quiet possibly win if the old style didnt have anyways to deal with a grappeler
then again im no master so i may well be wrong

Originally posted by thatoneguy

yet in a 1 on 1 match the grappeler quiet possibly win if the old style didnt have anyways to deal with a grappeler
then again im no master so i may well be wrong

What I don't understand is what makes a grapplers attack different from any other attack? If you train in defend against any attack, what makes a grapplers attack so special that no one can defend against it, its hype pure and simple, and attack is an attack and there is only a limited amount of way to attack.

7sm

Originally posted by 7starmantis

What I don't understand is what makes a grapplers attack different from any other attack? If you train in defend against any attack, what makes a grapplers attack so special that no one can defend against it, its hype pure and simple, and attack is an attack and there is only a limited amount of way to attack.

To me, the difference that they're highlighting is that most CMA doesn't deal with fight once it hits the ground. While BJJ has strikes and kicks in it, their intent is to gain access to the opponent in order to take them down. Most CMA tries to finish the fight while standing. There are different strategies involved and different moves once you're on your back.

I personally think learning to fight in all ranges is important and that both sides are just beating their chests when they say they can handle the other without entering the other's territory. Trying to grab a good stand-up fighter can get you a lot of trouble and someone who only practices while standing will have a difficult time on the ground. It's all about balanced training if that's what you're concerned about.

WhiteBirch

No, I train very balanced, I just don't understand the hype that bjj and all has nowdays. "the Gracies can take anyone to the ground and finish the fight". I jsut don't understand blanketed comments like that, that all I'm saying.

7sm

BJJ made it big when the UFC started. Not many styles really worked on the ground saying that they would never end up there anyways. Then the UFC hit the stage and the Gracies proved them wrong, taking everyone to the floor and finishing the fight there.

Now you can see more mixed matches with neither side of the art particularly dominating. Every fight has standup and ground elements.

Back then I could see why they were talking. Now, though, many styles have incorporated or strengthened their ground fighting capabilities so that there's less difference between the styles. Also the BJJ stylists have added Muy Thai and JKD to their arsenals so they can fight standing up. We're starting to see the middle ground (thus MMA's claim to fame), but I think it was probably there all the time.

So, the short of it, people are just repeating what they've been saying for the last several years, without looking around and seeing the more middle-ground approach being taken. They think it makes them sound like they're smarter than you, because they're studying the "right" art. I personally just smile and let it pass.

WhiteBirch

i think grappeling has advantages in a 1 on 1 match but if your on the street and your opponent who has friends then your in alot more trouble than good old punching and kicking

i think that one must have skills in grappeling kicking and punching for a good chance to win in a UFC

Originally posted by thatoneguy


i think that one must have skills in grappeling kicking and punching for a good chance to win in a UFC

Since most of us study MA or CMA in general for self preservation and protection I don't think UFC is on our minds much at all. I personally think a serious student of most CMA systems (not only CMA systems, but thats where my expertise is so I'll limit my statement to them) are not interested in cross training because their system offers strong emphasis on striking, kicking, and grappling. From my personal experience most CMA have strong defense against and strong techniques in grappling.

Again, just my simple opinion,

7sm

im thinking that the system that you choose is like school. after you learn some basics in most everything, your free too pursue your own field of study because that's what you want to learn and thats what you want to do. if you are an expert in mathematics, what are the chances that you will have to someday perform surgery or plead a case in court?
so back on topic, dont change a system, but encourage knowledge of other subject matter.

Originally posted by theneuhauser

im thinking that the system that you choose is like school. after you learn some basics in most everything, your free too pursue your own field of study because that's what you want to learn and thats what you want to do. if you are an expert in mathematics, what are the chances that you will have to someday perform surgery or plead a case in court?
so back on topic, dont change a system, but encourage knowledge of other subject matter.

Thats a good analogy, but lets remember that we dont pursue our own field of study while in grade school, or even high school. My opinion is to get a good base, then, after grounding yourself go on to concentrate on what works for you.

7sm

yeah, that wasnt the best metaphor ive ever used. ill have to work on that one a little. a good base is what though? is it skills in everything from punching to kicking and wrestling and throwing and breaking, etc, etc, etc. or is a good base more like flexibility, stamina, footwork, balance, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Originally posted by theneuhauser

yeah, that wasnt the best metaphor ive ever used. ill have to work on that one a little. a good base is what though? is it skills in everything from punching to kicking and wrestling and throwing and breaking, etc, etc, etc. or is a good base more like flexibility, stamina, footwork, balance, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Well, you pose a good question. I guess the statement is quite subjective, however, I think a "good base" is more than merely stamina, stretching, ect ect. I think a good base would be all of the above. Basic techniques involving punching, throws, kicks, grappling, ect, also involving stamina, stretching, speed, ect ect.

I think a good base would most likely take a good few years, at least in most CMA. I don't have much experience outside CMA, but I couldn't imagine it would be much different.

7sm

It's the same kind of arguement we heard many moons ago from the amateur and pro boxers, insisting that no martial arts person (be it kung-fu, karate, or whatever) could beat them because they knew how to take a punch....

Right.

It's tough to "suck it up" when your rib cage is crushed or your knee's ligaments look like silly string. But THEN they insisted on using boxing "rules."

To quote a great movie....."Rules?? In a knife fight?" I used to have that framed in my school.

Grappler will insist this and that - and we all have to agree to play by their rules - ?????

Let's not forget shuai-jiao which includes both standing techniques AND what is now popularly called "ground fighting." Let's not forget chin-na which includes joint locks, chokes, pins, and seizing techniques.

We don't overly concern ourselves with this matter of ground fighting because, as Chufeng aptly put it, it is unrealistic for self-defense. You cannot afford to be rolling around on the street with one guy and expect his friends to hold up scorecards while you do it.

In ground fighting I would ask, "what's the object?" Is it to make the other guy submit? To choke him out? To kill him? From what I've seen of "ground fighters," it's usually intended to force the opponent into submission.
This is not how traditional martial arts are applied in actual combat. The object in these arts is to kill the enemy as quickly as possible. There are no rules. No submissions. No second place. It isn't UFC or WWF.

It's the real thing. Trust me, if Chinese martial arts practicioners couldn't deal with grapplers, they wouldn't have lasted this long.

"It's the real thing. Trust me, if Chinese martial arts practicioners couldn't deal with grapplers, they wouldn't have lasted this long."

great post mr, starr. but what i was getting at with this thread is the question of integration of "wrestling" into the stand up arts. some have more qin na and throws than others, but most are also very lengthy curriculums. so with that thought, i wonder if introducing some "groundfighting" into many of these systems would end up dilluting some other aspect. after all, many of these systems were compiled with full time training in mind, and nowadays very few folks can afford that "luxury" :asian:

I understand your question, and it is a good one. I very much doubt that any of the arts to which you referring wouldconsider your idea as most of them, as you noted, hav very lengthy curriculums as it is. Adding more would make them that much lengthier.

Additionally, I imagine many of them would regard such training as superfluous and argue that if an enemy is thrown or knocked down, he is to be finished on the ground and no attempt should be made to go down with him and grapple.

If one is thrown down oneself, they would argue, one can rely on the grappling type of training already within their curriculum or theapplication of seizing and attacking vital points.

Most CMA have plenty of chin na and shuai chiao techniques already included in their curricula. There are sufficient numbers of techniques and variations that any CMAist should have a fair armory to choose from...

However, if you never take a class or two to get two people rolling on the ground together, the newness of the experience will hamper the person's ability to think on his belly instead of thinking on his feet.

I don't advocate groundfighting training, but like anything, some kind of orientation to the situation can do nothing but help. Get a few people together before or after class, and figure out how you would end up on the ground. Then get there. Then, figure out how you would use what you already know to make the situation come out in your favor. Allow some light stiking, so both parties can get a feel for the fact that hitting occurs when on the ground. Tap the other person on the inside of their thigh if you would have been able to get in a clean groin shot. Incorporate some safe ways to simulate dirty tricks (i.e. biting, eye gouging, etc.), as well as using real life skin grabs, pressure point seizing, etc.

Mix it up and see what happens. We could discuss this for days, but in the final analysis, unless you have to deal with the situation for real you will never know...

Gambarimasu.

Its funny to read back on some of your posts from a year or so ago and see how different they sound from what you would write today.

I think the grappling question is one that was deffinatly brought to the attention of many with the rise of the UFC and the Gracie's. However, true CMA includes grappling as well, so the question should be, "are you training completely"? In mantis we do heavy standing training, but an amazing amount of ground work as well. I would feel confident on the gorund or standing, although I would most likely attempt to stay on my feet in a fight. If taken to the ground however, I wouldn't resists, but continue the fight with the same principles as a standing fight. The principles of the technique shouldn't change from standing to on the gorund in my opinion.

7sm

I actually think that the issue is not the style, but how it is trained. MOST (not all) CMA schools do not train with the high level of intesity of MMA schools.

MMA'sts train to take punches, take high levels of pain in pain holds, and spend long amount of time on the floor.

Most CMA'st don't train that way.

Honestly I have NO interest in learning groundfighting. Its not that I don't think its effective, I just don't want to spend a couple of hours a week tied up in another man's armpit.

I actually think that the issue is not the style, but how it is trained. MOST (not all) CMA schools do not train with the high level of intesity of MMA schools.

MMA'sts train to take punches, take high levels of pain in pain holds, and spend long amount of time on the floor.

Most CMA'st don't train that way.
I think that is a common misconception for those with a lack of experience or exposure to true CMA. Most CMA schools I have been in are extremely intense in their training and technique. We have black belts who visist our school throwing up in the intermediate class.

As far as training to take punches, iron body is almost purely CMA. High levels of pain in chin na holds is extremely intense, trust me. I'm not trying to attack you, but I think your point is one from your own point of view without any type of research to use the word "most". I'm training for San Shou which is a full contact type of fighting developed in China. Its extremely intense, don't be fooled by the hype, other people train hard as well, not just MMAist.

7sm

Being a CMA and having a housemate who's a self-confessed MMA, I can safely say from my own experience it's down to how you train in your art. My housemate's done alot of everything while I lean more towards the traditional styles and while he and many other MMA's say that you need to learn all aspects of fighting including groundwork I stand by the old saying "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Also like another previous poster said, CMA's have been around for AGES and were MADE for fighting, it's not just flashy tradition (which Bruce Lee himself denounced TMA off - and is the current reductionist thought of MMA).

But then again, if you train WELL, then you'll be good regardless of your style. I just wish to attain a certain level in my choosen style Fujian White Crane and intend not to be taken down to the ground.

There's alot of depth in CMA's and TMA's than many people realise due to the annoyingly common "I want results now" attitude. The systems are built upon principles and MA's should utilise such principles - THAT is my goal within CMA.

Grapplers ( or fighting on the ground) like knives has always been a problem. The only thing is now more people are actively learning how to grapple,just like more people are learning filipino knife work. If you dont actively/ and consciously practice (basic)responses to someone trying to uproot you or take you to the ground, the same as practicing responses to a blade attack you may do something useless or nothing at all. What I am saying is if the proper response/action is in your system but you dont know and practice it, it may as well not be there.
So maybe the question should be how often do you practice against someone trying to take you to the ground now that mma and such is so popular? It is as valid as learning how to defend against a kick, grab, punch etc.

Very good point. What is the point of stance training for rooting if you never test your stance against attacks to your root? You wouldn't dream of practising blocks all day but never practising those blocks against strikes.

Move around and get tackled a bit. Get tackled high, get tackled low. When you fall down get back up as quickly as possible.

CMA may be able to deal with all manner of grappling attacks, but you won't be able to unless you practise.