Groundfighting in other systems

[Icepick]

What other systems have groundfighting elements in them?

Modern Arnis has "groundfighting", but it's usually of the type where I break your wrist, throw you to the ground and then keep beating you up. The only technique I did in Modern Arnis that I really recognize in BJJ is the omoplata, but the entry is different.

What about all you Kenpo and Aikido guys?

 

[GouRonin]

Kenpo has some limited groundwork. It involves breakfalls rolls etc but I have seen a lot of kneels and crushes along with some locks and throws in the techniques.

As an aside I have used techniques from standing interaction on the ground. (I used "Parting Wings" from my back in the guard in Judo to gain momentum and roll into the mount) So The techniques can apply but just on a different plane than the vertical.

Unlike some Kenpo schools Judo techniques are applied in actual use. So it was nice to see that the stuff has application. Don't get me wrong, there are some Kenpo schools that rock. But not McDojo's.

 

[Cthulhu]

Okinawa-te as taught to me by my instructor has ground/grappling fighting. I don't think the group he's with now really does any groundwork.

Okinawa-te grappling is principle-based, rather than technique-based. The primary principle (principle principle? ) is going with the force rather than fighting it, which is common to many martial arts at some level. I'm not very good at it

Cthulhu

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Cthulhu
Okinawa-te as taught to me by my instructor has ground/grappling fighting. I don't think the group he's with now really does any groundwork.

Okinawa-te grappling is principle-based, rather than technique-based. The primary principle (principle principle? ) is going with the force rather than fighting it, which is common to many martial arts at some level. I'm not very good at it

Cthulhu

I would say, in general, every martial art is based on principles. The techniques are specific illustrations of those priniciples. Some instructors may not know the principles behind the techniques, but the better ones certainly do.

Students are taught techniques instead of principles because it's easier to grasp. Once a certain number of techniques are learned, the principles behind them can be taught to tie them together. Sometimes, a student will figure the principles out on their own.

Once the principles are understood, the student begins to make up techniques that work. This will happen in more advanced students. To expect this of beginners is to be disappointed as an instructor and frustrated as a student.

- Kyle

 

[Cthulhu]

While it is true that most martial arts are based on principles, I've found that many instructors choose to primarily teach technique. There are few things worse than an instructor who demands correct form and technique, yet can't give a reason why the form is necessary.

There could be several reasons for this. The obvious one is that the person just doesn't know the principle behind a group of techniques. Another is that the person just doesn't know that a group of techniques all stem from a single technique. Yet another reason is that the instructor may believe the concept or principle is too difficult or complex for the student to understand.

I've always believed in principles over technique. Learning a technique pretty much teaches just that one technique. Learning a principle allows a student to derive a multitude of techniques from a single principle.

Cthulhu
babbling again

 

[GouRonin]

The problem is that many principles are learned by teaching a technique.

I have to agree though that one should not teach a technique for the sake of the technique. (Like too many Kenpoists do) But rather use it as a vehicle to learn the concept. I can't tell you how long it took to figure that out for me and I'm still unraveling it.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Kyle

I would say, in general, every martial art is based on principles.

I might say that some modern arts appear not to be based on principles but rather on a bag of tricks approach ("we have 365 kicks in this art--one for every day of the year!") and it quickly becomes obvious that the art is based on the experiences and favorite techniques of a jack-of-all-trades, but doesn't hang together for others. If it isn't based on principles, it won't work. The so-called mixed martial arts are generally built around a principle--I don't mean them.

I feel similarly about colleges offering multi-disciplinary majors--if one doesn't have a discipline to fall back on, then one has knowledge but not the basis to create new knowledge. It's teh difference between knowing the facts and having a framework in which to place them.

Students are taught techniques instead of principles because it's easier to grasp. Once a certain number of techniques are learned, the principles behind them can be taught to tie them together. Sometimes, a student will figure the principles out on their own.

Once the principles are understood, the student begins to make up techniques that work. This will happen in more advanced students. To expect this of beginners is to be disappointed as an instructor and frustrated as a student.

I largely agree, though one of the things I really like about the FMA is that they generally manage to place the principles first, and it works. It is commonplace for FMA students to be able to innovate from early on and to be encouraged to do so. Coming from an Okinawan karate background ("your elbow should be a half-inch lower") made it difficult for me to appreciate at first the difference. I was being told "swing the stick like this" with a focus on the flow and the general direction and target, not the precise angle and with my feet positioned exactly a shoulder width apart, etc. It was quite different.

I find extracting the principles from the art to be a fun puzzle but think there's much to be said for the FMA approach also. I don't think it's applicable to every art however for some of the reasons already mentioned by other posters.

 

[Cthulhu]

I love trying to root out the principles from techniques out of my system. I also like working on kata bunkai from every form I can learn.

Cthulhu

 

[arnisador]

I know that Bando, and in part because of it the Dog Brothers, have ground-based stick grappling.

See also:
http://www.wekaf.com/styles/dog_brother.htm
http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/

 

[Kempojujutsu]

The style of Kempojujutsu we teach show alot of groundfighting. We don't go to the ground unless we have to. But you should be comfortable from the ground(just like a judo jutsu or BJJ person would be). Students must know names of positions, locks, escapes from all kinds of positions. I know some styles of kenpo/kempo do not get that involved with grappling. But to become a more round Martial artist it should. Whether you further your training with some kind of judo, jujutsu or wrestling. :drinkbeer

 

[Nightingale]

interesting stuff!

 

[ace]

Shooto,Sombo, Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling
For The Shoot groups Theres
Pancrase,PWFG,UWFI,Shooto,Rings

all the Groups Have been around for a Long Time
Some Longer Than The UFC.

 

[YouAgain]

In Koryu Uchinadi allmost all of our Two Peroson Drills and Bunki-Jitsu end up on the ground in a grappeling situation!

 

[pknox]

As far as arts that are not primarily grappling in their focus, some Filipino arts incorporate Dumog, which is throwing and a bit of ground grappling. Silat has a fair amount of grappling of both types as well. Most schools of kung fu incorporate some type of chin na for joint/tendon/muscle manipulation, and some also go to the ground as well. Most Okinawan based arts incorporate at least some throws and/or standing joint locks, and some incorporate basic jujitsu/judo ground techniques as well. Muay Thai makes extensive use of clinching, and supposedly had more grappling in its original, more traditional form.