Which should be first?

[TKDTony2179]

Assuming they can't be learned together for some reason, should a beginner learn striking before grappling or grappling before striking?

 

[Takai]

Depends on what they want to focus on. Both have merits and detractions. I would lean towards striking personally but, that is personal preference.

 

[Cyriacus]

Striking beats grappling if you can strike before youre grappled, grappling beats striking if you can grapple before youre struck.
Besides the personal preferences of the individual, in my opinion, striking applies to a broader range of situations, especially if its the first thing youre ever learning. So, that, i guess.

 

[SENC-33]

Striking, striking and then more striking. Learn to hit deceptively to vital areas in a pre-emptive manner with your fist, open palm, knife hand, hammer fist, short range kicks and then learn to strike from any angle and while moving. Learn how to deflect a strike with a strike and then go and learn to strike on your knees, on your back and while rolling on the ground.

Even after 30 years of doing this I STILL to this day look for different ways I can strike "effectively" from any position imagineable. Your bodies natural defense is to strike

 

[oftheherd1]

I must admit to some curiosity as to why a TKD person would even question the use of grappling. It seems not to have been a part of TKD for many years. I know some TKD schools paint Hapkido on their windows and claim to teach it, but I think most just add in a few techniques which may or may not have been well learned.

Since grappling does not seem to be a real part of TKD, I would think emphasis should be on what is primary to any striking art, even if some grappling is taught later.

In any art that teaches both, I would expect that the old masters of the art had long since determined what worked best for most people to best enhance their learning. I would go with what the teachers say.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Assuming they can't be learned together for some reason, should a beginner learn striking before grappling or grappling before striking?

Which first? In the context of learning a martial art it really doesn't matter in the long run; leanring Judo first isn't going to hurt you leaning taekwondo later, but if it is a question of quickly learning techniques that you can use with consistency, I would choose striking. Not because it is superior, but because it is actually less complex than grappling and it is easier to put together a fairly usable, if basic, striking defence.

 

[lklawson]

Assuming they can't be learned together for some reason, should a beginner learn striking before grappling or grappling before striking?

Honestly? Grappling, and for a number of reasons.

First, it's more natural. Yes, I know that most people think striking is more natural, but they're only partially right. If you look at young kids, before any sort of training, you see that the wrastle around by default. It's an instinct. Yes, they do tend to strike sometimes, but, again, look at what kind of "striking" they do. "Hitting" always starts with a simple hammer-fist and kicking is always a simple toe-kick. Those are the two "natural" and instinctive strikes. Everything after that is grappling. This even holds true when we start discussing primates. Hammer-fist then grappling. Instinct.

Second, it's easier to learn. Well, the basics of it anyway. Remember the basic, instinctive strike is a hammer-fist. Most other punching and kicking after that require special "training" by someone who's learned "the right way" to punch. And here's a kicker, bizarrely, there is, even now, yet a debate over what's the "right way" to punch with advocates for both horizontal and "pistol grip," and debates over which parts of the fist/knuckles to hit with. And that's without getting into the debate over proper and effective power-generation, for which there seems to be between 3 and 5 different accepted methods. Yet grappling is "simple" in comparison. Ever watch a "brawl" between two idiots? It frequently starts off "striking" but, very quickly, one idiot is proven the greater and starts getting his butt handed to him. What's he do? He crashes to the clinch. Why? Because it's instinctive and because he knows that clinching will smother the opponent's punches, greatly reducing their effectiveness. This was true even before the rise of MMA's popularity. And, despite what striking advocates claim, it's really quite hard to stop-hit prevent a rush to clinch. Yeah, he may eat one going it, but most people won't KO from a single punch. And, once clinch has been achieved, the human-barnacle will start messing around trying to capture the limbs, drag the fight to the floor, push the opponent to a different location, or just hang on until someone breaks up the fight. It's really quite easy. Are there vast levels of technique, position, and tactics which can be learned past "human-barnacle" stage? Duh.

Third, in our hyper-litigious society, grappling is seen as somehow "safer" and less violent. Everyone knows that punching someone in the head can cause him injury. But they believe now, perhaps because of the rise of MMA, that grappling a person is less likely to cause long-term or serious injury and that it is representative of being more "in control." And, to a degree this is right. It is vastly more easy to establish "control" of an opponent though grappling than it is through striking if the simultaneous goal of not seriously injuring someone exist. In the old days, cops wouldn't grapple a suspect. They'd baton 'em until they lost consciousness (maybe permanently). Control established. Can't do that any more. Further, to the point of legalities, the most common way of a person dying in a "street fight" is from hitting their head on a hard surface such as asphalt or a concrete curb, usually after being punched ("Knockout Game" anyone?). While it is still quite possible to cause head injury due to a throw, the grappler has more options for how throws are performed and somewhat more options on how to "guide" the person being thrown. No, it's not an exact science, but it's something.

This is the point where someone always objects about weapons, knives, broken glass, needles on the ground, lava, etc. Frankly, well, yeah, and? If you are unarmed engage someone with a knife, your borked, even if you're a striker. Further, let's be honest here, 80% of your knife defenses actually are standing grappling engagements which require you to contact/control/guide the opponent's knife. And, while much has been made of "going to the ground" and the dangers of broken glass, contaminants, and the opponent's friends giving you the boot, the fact is that I've known several instances where a defender "went to the ground" and none of these were an issue (besides, your friends should be giving your opponent the boot!). Further, if you have a basic understanding of grappling, and often even if you don't, there is no requirement to take the fight to the ground. Standing grappling can be quite effective and, just because you arrange for your opponent to go to the ground doesn't necessarily mean you are joining him there. A nice hip-toss does end up with "ground fighting" for the person tossed. If you're the tossee instead of the tosser (see what I did there? )...

Then there's blood born pathogens. As I admitted to in a thread a month or two back, if you punch someone in the head your chances of mixing body fluids goes up and then you may have to worry about what sort of disease the other guy might have. Yeah, that sucks. This is, frankly, less of an issue with grappling.

Finally, good grappling training is more available than ever. It used to be that if you wanted grappling training you could either chose high school wrestling, which lacked quite a bit of what most "martial artist" want out of grappling, or you could chose Judo. Yes, there were other styles available. You could make a strong case that Aikido is heavily grappling. OK. Yes, there exists Shuai jiao and other exotic styles, but even today they're harder to find. However, Judo is experiencing a revival, thanks to new superstars such as Kayla Harrison as well as MMA fighters with Judo lineage, and Brazilian JuJitsu is more available than ever, thanks to the Gracies and their success in MMA, and then there's a kind of generic MMA grappling as well as sub-grappling and a renaissance of earlier western wrestling methods such as various incarnations of Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling.

In conclusion, I'm bucking the trend and saying "grappling first" because it's more instinctive, easier to learn the basics, legally safer, less vulnerable to environmental dangers than some claim, is physically and medically safer, and good instruction has never been more readily available.

Can you make a case for striking first? Sure. Lots of people above already have. This is the counter-point.

Fortunately, the truth is, the thought experiment here is just that. There's no reason in the world why the two can't be "learned together." They don't really get in each others way.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

First, it's more natural. Yes, I know that most people think striking is more natural, but they're only partially right. If you look at young kids, before any sort of training, you see that the wrastle around by default. It's an instinct. Yes, they do tend to strike sometimes, but, again, look at what kind of "striking" they do. "Hitting" always starts with a simple hammer-fist and kicking is always a simple toe-kick. Those are the two "natural" and instinctive strikes. Everything after that is grappling. This even holds true when we start discussing primates. Hammer-fist then grappling. Instinct.

Second, it's easier to learn. Well, the basics of it anyway.

While I disagree with regarding what you said above, I do strongly agree with what you said below.

Fortunately, the truth is, the thought experiment here is just that. There's no reason in the world why the two can't be "learned together." They don't really get in each others way.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

should a beginner learn striking before grappling or grappling before striking?

The grappling art should be learned first. It's not because which art is better, it's because the grappling art training method is superior than the striking art training method.

The grappling art has no forms. You learn one throw after another. You also learn that the grappling art cannot be learned "solo". After you have learned some grappling art, when you start to learn the striking art, you will try to use your grappling art learning method to apply on your striking art learning. Since you may know that both wrestling "single leg" and Judo "hip throw" work well, you won't have "style boundary" when you get into your striking art training.

From your grappling art training, you will understand that the closer the distance, the safer that you will be. When you start to learn the striking art, you will like to move in toward your opponent with courage. That will be a good thing for your striking art training.

The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment. You will get good result in a short period of time. In 6 month of grappling art training, you should be able to take most people down by your "single leg". If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.

 

[ballen0351]

The grappling art should be learned first. It's not because which art is better, it's because the grappling art training method is superior than the striking art training method.

In your opinion that is.....

The grappling art has no forms. You learn one throw after another. You also learn that the grappling a cannot be learned "solo". After you have learned some grappling art, when you start to learn the striking art, you will try to use your grappling art learning md to apply on your striking art learning. Since you may know that both wrestling "single leg" and Judo "hip throw" work well, you won't have "style boundary" when you get into your striking art training.

More opinion. And what's a style boundary?

From your grappling art training, you will understand that the closer the distance, the safer that you will be. When you start to learn the striking art, you will like to move in toward your opponent with courage. That will be a good thing for your striking art training.

You learn the same thing in striking arts as well without grappling

The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment. You will get good result in a short period of time. In 6 month of grappling art training, you should be able to take most people down by your "single leg". If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.

Again in your opinion

 

[Cyriacus]

The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment. You will get good result in a short period of time. In 6 month of grappling art training, you should be able to take most people down by your "single leg". If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.

Alternatively, i can tell you how to tackle someone in a couple of sentences and youll probably be able to do it right away. And if you stay upright and go low, you can call it a double leg

 

[SENC-33]

The grappling art should be learned first. It's not because which art is better, it's because the grappling art training method is superior than the striking art training method.

The grappling art has no forms. You learn one throw after another. You also learn that the grappling art cannot be learned "solo". After you have learned some grappling art, when you start to learn the striking art, you will try to use your grappling art learning method to apply on your striking art learning. Since you may know that both wrestling "single leg" and Judo "hip throw" work well, you won't have "style boundary" when you get into your striking art training.

From your grappling art training, you will understand that the closer the distance, the safer that you will be. When you start to learn the striking art, you will like to move in toward your opponent with courage. That will be a good thing for your striking art training.

The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment. You will get good result in a short period of time. In 6 month of grappling art training, you should be able to take most people down by your "single leg". If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.

Couple of points......

Systema has no forms.....
Systema teaches the very concept of closing the distance for effectiveness
Systema does a superb job of teaching in a safe environment
Systema is the "quickest to results" style I have ever trained (while some may disagree)
Systema is one of if not the hardest striking arts in the world and I have trained striking arts for 30 years

Note I am using Systema as my chosen example that striking should be learned first not whether or not it is the best system to start with.

 

[skribs]

I disagree that grappling is more natural. It's a lot easier to learn a leg kick or a jab than it is to learn grappling move after grappling move. I also believe striking arts are simpler. You have a handful of punches, open hand strikes, kicks, and blocks. In a grappling art you have dozens of take-downs, escapes, reversals, level changes, and submission moves. Grappling requires a firm understanding of the body mechanics involved for you and the opponent, whereas striking you just need to know how to throw the technique and where to hit.

To answer the question, though, I would have to ask: what is your purpose? Is your purpose general fitness and introduction into martial arts as a hobby? Is your purpose to train yourself into an MMA fighter? Or is your purpose to learn quick-and-effective self defense?

If your goal is to ease into martial arts, I would start off with striking arts. They tend to be simpler (less moves to learn), a bit faster-paced (you're out of breath after wrestling or boxing, but I think you get more cardio in while boxing), and thus would be easier to start off with. If you decide later on you want to add grappling to the mix, you are then free to do so.

If you want to be an MMA fighter, I would start off with a grappling art (probably Judo or BJJ), because that is going to have a higher learning curve than learning to throw a few punches. Once you have a solid foundation in that, pick up Muay Thai for a well-rounded striking art.

If you want to learn self defense, pick either a striking art or a very specific grappling art (Aikido and Hapkido are the top of my list) and really work on your footwork. I think most grappling arts have their place in self defense (I've used wrestling techniques when getting picked on in high school) but for the most part you don't want to be on the ground grappling one person if there are multiple assailants.

Personally, though, I picked Tae Kwon Do (striking) as my first art and Hapkido (grappling) as my second. Why? I liked the school and the master. That's more important than the specific art or even style.

 

[Cyriacus]

I disagree that grappling is more natural.

At school, i only ever heard of one person throwing a punch. Everyone else threw people down then kicked them. I guess that may be an exception and not the rule, but absolutes dont always hold

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In your opinion that is.....And what's a style boundary?

Of course it's my opinion. Do I have to attach "IMO (in my opinion)" on every single post that I put up?

The "style boundary" is the attitude such as "My style doesn't do this.", "It's against my style principle.", "My style is better than your style", ...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I disagree that grappling is more natural.

If we look at animal behavior, the wrestling came much earlier before the striking was invented in human history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphdf_jAp-M&feature=youtu.be

 

[ballen0351]

Of course it's my opinion. Do I have to attach "IMO (in my opinion)" on every single post that I put up?

when you make statements that grappling training methods are superior then yeah it should be said.

The "style boundary" is the attitude such as "My style doesn't do this." "It's against my style principle.", "My style is better than your style", ...

oh and that only exists in striking arts huh?

 

[ballen0351]

If we look at animal behavior, the wrestling came much earlier before the striking was invented in human history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphdf_jAp-M&feature=youtu.be

UM they are deer. Im not sure how that is relevent

if were using animals as proof it looks like sword arts or Arnis are the way to go

 

[skribs]

I've seen fights where people just try to muscle each other down, and fights where people throw nothing but haymakers. However, most "grappling" that people do in fights only works because the person they're grappling with has no idea how to defend against it. It takes a lot less time to teach newbies a proper punch in my TKD class than it takes to teach any of us who have been going a while a proper joint lock or throw. There's less steps involved in throwing a punch (half of it is done when you just get into the stance) and you're only controlling your body, instead of both your body and the opponent.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I've seen fights where people just try to muscle each other down, and fights where people throw nothing but haymakers. However, most "grappling" that people do in fights only works because the person they're grappling with has no idea how to defend against it. It takes a lot less time to teach newbies a proper punch in my TKD class than it takes to teach any of us who have been going a while a proper joint lock or throw. There's less steps involved in throwing a punch (half of it is done when you just get into the stance) and you're only controlling your body, instead of both your body and the opponent.

If we know whether striking art is superior than grappling art or the other way around, we won't need cross training at all. The striking is 1 point contact. The grappling is 2 or even 3 points contact. If you have a chance to throw, you will definitely have a chance to strike. The other way around may not be true. After you have wrapped one of your opponent's arms, you can take him down. You can also punch him as showing in the following clip.

If you throw a matchbox in the air and punch at it, that matchbox will fly away. If you put that matchbox on the ground, even a 5 years old can step on and smash it (because it's not going anywhere). IMO, to throw your opponent down and then strike him will be more effective than exchange punches when are moving around with free legs. If you want to use your leg to control your opponent's leg/legs so he won't have mobility, that's grappling. So grappling is trying to take your opponent's mobility away which will be to your advantage.