STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

[drop bear]

Yes, you deal with the punch. Grappling doesn't ignore punches - it just doesn't respond to them with punches.

I've found reasonable success following his strategy, even with partners within the same art. If they come in ready to spar/strike, I want to confound that, and I find attacking their structure with grappling is the quickest way. If they want to grapple, I'd like to keep them away, and strikes are the best way (generically, paired with my movement) to keep them at a distance.

Of course, if I know them and know where their strengths are compared to mine, that can change the equation. One of my partners was also training in Shotokan. If he wanted to grapple, I grappled, because I wasn't going to win a striking contest with him. If one of the purple belts came at me wanting to grapple, I'd grapple, because I knew I had the upper hand there, and they were less likely to slip in a throw/takedown on me than to slip in a punch.

Back to this style over substance idea.

It is something we don't do tactically as our wrestling has strikes in it and our striking has wrestling.

To get a takedown We strike. it is part of that takedown.

 

[drop bear]

I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.

Do you understand why there is that feeling out proccess?

 

[DaveB]

Do you understand why there is that feeling out proccess?

That's a pretty random question.

I believe so. Why?

 

[drop bear]

That's a pretty random question.

I believe so. Why?

Because you seem to discount feeling out an oponant as a viable defence strategy.

Which seems a bit suicidal.

 

[DaveB]

Can you describe a self defence scenario where you would do so in the manner described?

 

[drop bear]

Can you describe a self defence scenario where you would do so in the manner described?

Ok. a person is upset with me. I back off but he comes towards me swinging punches. I nail him with a punch but he doesnt die and he doesn't back off. So from there I control the distance and reengage in a safe manner untill either I have room to escape or i beat him untill he stops.

 

[DaveB]

I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?

If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?

If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.

If you look at videos of attacks that aren't sneak attacks (so, mostly what I'd classify as "anger attacks") they sometimes back off a bit before following in, if the first sortie isn't successful. I think that's the point DB is talking about for circling and testing. You actually have a chance to control distance there, and they need not be competent (nor incompetent) for that strategy to be applied.

 

[JP3]

Ok. a person is upset with me. I back off but he comes towards me swinging punches. I nail him with a punch but he doesnt die and he doesn't back off. So from there I control the distance and reengage in a safe manner untill either I have room to escape or i beat him untill he stops.

I'd say that's just about every encounter I've ever had, except for while at work, either as a medic or as a bouncer, in which case escape wasn't the other option it was until the cavalry showed up in the bodies of the other back-up guys or PD.

It is unfortunate that opponents don't cooperate and just fall over when you hit them with the Big Punch like they do on TV, darn it.

 

[drop bear]

I presume the "circling and testing" I mentioned is in the "control the distance" part of your scenario.? I'm guessing that his renewed attack was in the style of a competent mmaist?

If not then I think we are talking about different things because there's nowhere in your description that you do what I was talking about.

I thought there was no specific situation. Untrained people also test. Why do you think that is?

 

[drop bear]

I'd say that's just about every encounter I've ever had, except for while at work, either as a medic or as a bouncer, in which case escape wasn't the other option it was until the cavalry showed up in the bodies of the other back-up guys or PD.

It is unfortunate that opponents don't cooperate and just fall over when you hit them with the Big Punch like they do on TV, darn it.

Jackals on a Buffalo.

 

[JP3]

Jackals on a Buffalo.

Precisely.

Why ARE there that many bouncers in a bar? Why DO so many LEO's show up at one time?

Because the basic force multiplier of having a buddy, or five of them, with you is the most effective self-defense, or fight, tactic ever invented.

 

[DaveB]

I thought there was no specific situation. Untrained people also test. Why do you think that is?

No offence, but I don't really care.

Im sure your view works for you and I'm equally sure that beyond the semantics we have more in common in this area than we have in conflict, but ultimately the vagaries of self defence are quite low on my list of priorities.

Apologies.

 

[drop bear]

No offence, but I don't really care.

Im sure your view works for you and I'm equally sure that beyond the semantics we have more in common in this area than we have in conflict, but ultimately the vagaries of self defence are quite low on my list of priorities.

Apologies.

You don't care what is actually involved in self defense?

I thought you were Mr self defense.

 

[DaveB]

You don't care what is actually involved in self defense?

I thought you were Mr self defense.

I don't care what you think you know or that I don't know or what semantics you wish to use to manufacture an argument on this topic.

In short, it's not going to work.

 

[drop bear]

I don't care what you think you know or that I don't know or what semantics you wish to use to manufacture an argument on this topic.

In short, it's not going to work.

You created this. I asked a question. You avoided that question and asked your own.

I answered that question. You apparently don't find fault in my answer because you haven't suggested it is wrong.

Of course it will work. That is how we are supposed to discuss a topic.

 

[DaveB]

BUMP.

Anybody else who practices an art with a guiding combative principle?

 

[Fuhrer Drumpf]

Piece of cake -

American Karate
kəˈrädē/ - Noun - No such thing. Made up mishmash of stuff. Still making stuff up as they go along.

This is true for any martial art if you go back far enough.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is true for any martial art if you go back far enough.

And should continue to be true (that last part).