JRE - Striking and BJJ

[oftheherd1]

We are talkibg about fighting ability, for which the kata has some benifits, what benifit to fighting ability does doibg it in time with 19 other people give you

You claim they got a reward, what reward did they get ?

The above to give context to @Hanzou post below.

It's all about discipline and standards. If a karate school is willing to let their students get away with sloppy kata, what else are they willing to let their students get away with?

Their black belts.

The bolded is a good question. In the 2nd video you posted that school must have been willing to make a lot of compromises. The underlined is only partially correct, and that in the context to my answer to the bolded question. Black belts who can't break boards is a shame. Whether lacking power or making the holder's hands the striking point. Of course some looked to be moving the boards a little bit, but no wonder.

My point was that unless you're regularly injuring your sparring partners with leg kicks, you can't say that in a SD situation you can throw a leg kick and instantly destroy their knee. Again, it CAN happen, but it's not a given.

Oh no, I've definitely seen worse.

I don't know about the karate you studied, but when I studied TKD in the 60s, we had things to actually kick, like bags and such. Most of us would practice on our own at home or a gym to develop speed and accuracy. The later was a big point with us; a part of control. We practiced control, accuracy, power/power generation, and guess what, katas.

If you can move a heavy or even light bag significantly, would that not indicate to you that you have power in you kick? If you can hit the bag where you intended, would that not indicate you can kick accurately? If you have a sufficiently accurate and powerful kick, do you doubt you could damage a knee or ankle or symphysis pubis?

If you say you have seen worse, I don't doubt it. Although I wonder if your implied meaning there is none better (which I find hard to believe) is the reason you left the study of karate? If you had previously said you just wanted to expand your abilities, I could understand and agree with that. I always thought my brief stint in TKD helped me be a little better in Hapkido. But your putting down karate, seemingly all of it, since you left karate rather than looking for another better school? Sorry, but it makes me wonder if there is more fault with the school you attended, or you as a student of karate. Either way ...

Regardless, if you are really happy with your grappling, stay with it and get better all the time. Just don't be afraid to compliment it with what you learned in Karate.

 

[TMA17]

It can go either way and based on your proficiency in grappling or striking, you can choose either.

This upcoming fight between Khabib and McGregor is interesting for this reason as it puts a top level striker against one of the best grapplers.

Khabib is an outlier though as no one has been able to defeat him either way.

 

[oftheherd1]

In essence, I simply don't believe that the only defence against grappling is grappling.

A grappler can defend against a striker, sure - but that's a failing on behalf of the striker.

A striker can also defend against a grappler though - but that's a failing on behalf of the grappler.

Are you saying the person, or the system? I am not sure I agree with your generalization either way. The bolded below might have more to do with it.

Whichever you choose, you're hoping the other fails (or you out skill them) because there are legitimate and more or less reliable defences both ways.

Looking at the underlined above, I'm curious. Are you referring to a particular fighting or grappling art, or all arts, and particularly in regard to grappling arts?

 

[oftheherd1]

It's already been put up. Moving on.

Which isn't full power.

This is one thing I can't understand about what I guess was your karate training. When I studied TKD, we were taught to always make a move at our maximum power, and always seek new maximums. Along with that we were taught to learn better and better control. When we were allowed to begin sparring, we would stop our kick or strike maybe three or four inches from our target. As we gained more control, we would stop our kick or strike closer and closer to our target. Really good students could get 1/2 to 1/4 inch from their target without striking it. Of course with a board or brick or stone, one would strike inside or beyond the target. We were taught that with that kind of control we could stop close to a practice opponent, or three inches inside an opponent who was trying to hurt us.

Don't they teach that in the striking arts anymore?

Boards and planks aren't moving bone, flesh and tissue. Also no part of the body is as flat or stiff as a board or a plank.

No, but as I have mentioned before, it gives one an indication of one's speed, accuracy, and power. Were you not taught to approach such practice with that goal in mind?

No you can't.

How are you able to say that? Any limitations that you or your acquaintances may have are not always true for others, especially those you don't personally know.

Craziness! I'm out of this. I'm going to take my angel off the pin and go home.

 

[pdg]

Are you saying the person, or the system? I am not sure I agree with your generalization either way. The bolded below might have more to do with it.

Generally the person. Hardly ever the system. See below.

Looking at the underlined above, I'm curious. Are you referring to a particular fighting or grappling art, or all arts, and particularly in regard to grappling arts?

Ok, so...

Being art independent, other than classifying as grappling or striking. Grappling may include rudimentary striking, and striking may include rudimentary grappling.

There are takedowns and submissions in TKD, but imo they're not very advanced (and rarely taught as such, if at all). I'm quite sure there are some strikes in something like BJJ, but I'd be very surprised if they were advanced in terms of technique or application.

A good grappler should generally beat a mediocre grappler, and should generally beat a mediocre striker.

A good striker should generally beat a mediocre striker, and should generally beat a mediocre grappler.

However, if a striker gets beaten by a grappler (of approximately the same skill level - and I'm in no way using belt colour as a reference point here) then the striker has failed by not being better.

And swap the words 'striker' and 'grappler' in the last paragraph.

If either outclasses the other, they should generally win. If they're about the same skill level, it should be down to luck or the other failing.

This really should apply across (almost) all arts.

 

[pdg]

This is one thing I can't understand about what I guess was your karate training. When I studied TKD, we were taught to always make a move at our maximum power, and always seek new maximums. Along with that we were taught to learn better and better control. When we were allowed to begin sparring, we would stop our kick or strike maybe three or four inches from our target. As we gained more control, we would stop our kick or strike closer and closer to our target. Really good students could get 1/2 to 1/4 inch from their target without striking it. Of course with a board or brick or stone, one would strike inside or beyond the target. We were taught that with that kind of control we could stop close to a practice opponent, or three inches inside an opponent who was trying to hurt us.

Don't they teach that in the striking arts anymore?

Yes and no, based on my own experience.

In step sparring we're expected to aim to hit, and it's supposed to be up to the defender to defend.

When the defender counters, they should stop the technique at or nearly at the opponent - pretty much as you described above.

Beginners punch/kick/elbow/knee/etc. a good few inches away - as you move up a certain degree of contact is allowed/expected.

Free sparring is somewhat different, contact is fully expected, but in a controlled fashion.

Non contact free sparring is for kids, beginners and people who forget to take sparring kit

 

[oftheherd1]

Ok, so...

Being art independent, other than classifying as grappling or striking. Grappling may include rudimentary striking, and striking may include rudimentary grappling.

There are takedowns and submissions in TKD, but imo they're not very advanced (and rarely taught as such, if at all). I'm quite sure there are some strikes in something like BJJ, but I'd be very surprised if they were advanced in terms of technique or application.

A good grappler should generally beat a mediocre grappler, and should generally beat a mediocre striker.

A good striker should generally beat a mediocre striker, and should generally beat a mediocre grappler.

However, if a striker gets beaten by a grappler (of approximately the same skill level - and I'm in no way using belt colour as a reference point here) then the striker has failed by not being better.

And swap the words 'striker' and 'grappler' in the last paragraph.

If either outclasses the other, they should generally win. If they're about the same skill level, it should be down to luck or the other failing.

This really should apply across (almost) all arts.

In the TKD I studied there was no grappling. I presume that was true of all other TKD at the time, but I don't really know since I didn't study them or visit their schools.

The reason I asked the way I did is that in the Hapkido I studied, we specifically trained in techniques to defend against various grabs, strikes, kicks, throws, and other attacks.

 

[oftheherd1]

Yes and no, based on my own experience.

In step sparring we're expected to aim to hit, and it's supposed to be up to the defender to defend.

When the defender counters, they should stop the technique at or nearly at the opponent - pretty much as you described above.

Beginners punch/kick/elbow/knee/etc. a good few inches away - as you move up a certain degree of contact is allowed/expected.

Free sparring is somewhat different, contact is fully expected, but in a controlled fashion.

Non contact free sparring is for kids, beginners and people who forget to take sparring kit

Did you wear any kind of sparring protection? We did not. In step sparring, if you were the defender, it was your responsibility to avoid being hit, but that was generally by a block, or newbies moving to the side until they gained skill and confidence in their blocks. I hated getting blocked until my forearm got desensitized to take it.

But full contact in sparring was not allowed. A sufficiently skilled person who could just barely touch could do so, whether punch or kick, but that was rare.

I studied briefly under a Moo Duc Kwan 2nd degree BB who used me to demonstrate control to the other students. He had me go to a horse stance and kicked at my nose. Couldn't have missed the tip of my nose by more than a millimeter with a fast full force front snap kick up and over my head. That was more than sixty years ago and I still vividly remember the breeze on the tip of my nose, but no touch, and he fluidly back to a fighting stance.

 

[TMA17]

Same thing but his stance is a little different here. In this video they suggest striking and wrestling isn’t enough and you absolutely need BJJ.

 

[Buka]

I have yet to see a karate dojo where a group performing kata was not part of belt testing.

For information purposes only - I've been teaching American Karate for over forty years. A group performing Kata has never been part of any test. In fact, individuals doing Kata has never been part of any test, or any class, Katas are not part of our training.

Just sayin'.

 

[Hanzou]

In essence, I simply don't believe that the only defence against grappling is grappling.

A grappler can defend against a striker, sure - but that's a failing on behalf of the striker.

A striker can also defend against a grappler though - but that's a failing on behalf of the grappler.

Whichever you choose, you're hoping the other fails (or you out skill them) because there are legitimate and more or less reliable defences both ways.

You can believe whatever you want, but the reality is that grapplers are trained to counter strikers because it is assumed that the majority of people you're going to end up fighting will be strikers. In striking arts, counters to grappling are rarely dealt with because again, the assumption is that you're going to be dealing with more strikers than grapplers in a fight. Thing is that grapplers also have to deal with other grapplers by default, so they really get the best of both worlds almost by accident.

 

[Hanzou]

For information purposes only - I've been teaching American Karate for over forty years. A group performing Kata has never been part of any test. In fact, individuals doing Kata has never been part of any test, or any class, Katas are not part of our training.

Just sayin'.

Interesting. I've had the exact opposite experience. Maybe because my background is Japanese karate?

 

[pdg]

In the TKD I studied there was no grappling. I presume that was true of all other TKD at the time, but I don't really know since I didn't study them or visit their schools.

The reason I asked the way I did is that in the Hapkido I studied, we specifically trained in techniques to defend against various grabs, strikes, kicks, throws, and other attacks.

The grappling I'm referring to is the low level minor stuff in the encyclopedia, there's stuff in the 1965 edition too...

Pretty basic takedowns, throws, grabs and associated defences.

 

[Buka]

Interesting. I've had the exact opposite experience. Maybe because my background is Japanese karate?

Probably. We just don't have any Kata. There are some exceptions, though. We used to compete a lot. Some of the kids wanted to compete in Kata as well as fighting. So we'd make up a Kata for the kid to do in competition. But it would belong to that kid only. He could practice it in the dojo AFTER class.

If I had to do it over, though, I think I'd make sanchin kata part of our system. I always like the dynamic tension component of it.

I realize that all this might sound sacrilegious to Karate purists, but I don't think it would be if you knew us. A lot of my friends and acquaintances are Traditional Martial Artists, they never cared. They still don't.

 

[pdg]

Did you wear any kind of sparring protection? We did not. In step sparring, if you were the defender, it was your responsibility to avoid being hit, but that was generally by a block, or newbies moving to the side until they gained skill and confidence in their blocks. I hated getting blocked until my forearm got desensitized to take it.

But full contact in sparring was not allowed. A sufficiently skilled person who could just barely touch could do so, whether punch or kick, but that was rare.

Step sparring is pretty much as you describe. No kit for that, block/avoid or get hit (unless the attacker is being nice and pulls it). Oh, but there are at least 3 people who put shin pads on their arms when told to step spar against me

Free sparring has kit - boots (with integrated or separate shin pads), cup, gloves, hat and gumshield.

It's not full contact, but there's the odd bloody nose or lip, the occasional black eye, a fair few bruises and a couple of months back I got a cracked rib. Still, that's medium contact for you

We occasionally do kit free non contact, but it's unusual if a few of us don't agree to light/medium contact...

 

[Hanzou]

Same thing but his stance is a little different here. In this video they suggest striking and wrestling isn’t enough and you absolutely need BJJ.

The BJJ school you attend covers all of that, so you're fine.

 

[pdg]

Probably. We just don't have any Kata. There are some exceptions, though. We used to compete a lot. Some of the kids wanted to compete in Kata as well as fighting. So we'd make up a Kata for the kid to do in competition. But it would belong to that kid only. He could practice it in the dojo AFTER class.

If I had to do it over, though, I think I'd make sanchin kata part of our system. I always like the dynamic tension component of it.

I realize that all this might sound sacrilegious to Karate purists, but I don't think it would be if you knew us. A lot of my friends and acquaintances are Traditional Martial Artists, they never cared. They still don't.

I like kata (even though we use a different name ), I enjoy doing them and I think there are benefits for me.

If someone else doesn't like them, or doesn't get any benefit, that's their (or their system's) choice.

The only thing I disagree with is people who say they're a pointless exercise, or those who try to say kata-free systems are lacking...

 

[pdg]

No, I'm saying I can.

What I'm not saying is that I can do it 100% of the time against absolutely anyone.

Just like being able to get a choke on, it's situational as to reliability.

@Hanzou - what about this are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying getting a choke is a 100% technique? That it being viable doesn't depend on the situation?

Or are you saying that I'm wrong to say I can't guarantee a perfect strike irrespective of my opponent?

 

[Hanzou]

@Hanzou - what about this are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying getting a choke is a 100% technique? That it being viable doesn't depend on the situation?

Or are you saying that I'm wrong to say I can't guarantee a perfect strike irrespective of my opponent?

I'm saying that once a choke is applied, bearing some unforeseen circumstances, there's a very high chance the person you're choking is going to sleep. Once applied, it's very reliable.

 

[pdg]

I'm saying that once a choke is applied, bearing some unforeseen circumstances, there's a very high chance the person you're choking is going to sleep. Once applied, it's very reliable.

But that wasn't what I said at all, so you disagreed for the sake of it.

I said "getting a choke", which means going from not touching them to having your limb around their neck.

Saying that you are almost certain to be able to apply a choke to someone who doesn't want to play the grappling game is pure fantasy.