A punch should be followed by a pull

[drop bear]

A: Why does these 2 TMA guys all fight like kickboxer?
B: Because they both use 16 oz boxing gloves.

Do you think you can train your TMA fighting style with 16 oz boxing gloves that won't allow you to grab/pull?

 

[Gweilo]

I agree with the situational senario, to continually strike then pull would Imo, would show you have a repeated pattern or strategy, by turning every attack or counter into a 2 or even a 4 beat manever.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A punch should not be just a punch. A punch should be followed by a pull. A punch should be like the following ancient weapon.

Your thought?

That's situational. I like the idea of training so that any punch can be followed by a pull, learning to deliver punches with an adjustment to make that possible. But I'd never want to say they all should be followed by a pull. A punch to the nose is most effective when it snaps out and back. If I want to pull something, I need to leave it out and change direction after the strike, all of which changes much in the delivery of the punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends if you trust your striking. If you do, no pull need. If you don't, pull in order to grapple.

To some extent, I agree. Sometimes it's not a matter of trust, but of preference. In some situations, I'm more effective as a striker. In other situations, I'm more effective grappling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you use this weapon, even if you can pull with it, you don't give up your stabbing ability.

stab + pull > stab

If you have choice of the following 2 weapons, which one will you choose?

It depends what you want to do. The top weapon is likely to be lodged in the opponent, and harder to use on the next guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

IMO it would mean you're more confident in your grappling then your striking. Because you're you're actively turning a striking match into a grappling match.

Which is fine for people who are lrinarilg grapplers. I just wouldn't do so because I trust my striking

It could also mean you're more confident in THEIR striking than THEIR grappling, so you go to where they seem weaker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yup. So you're grappling to set up a strike, because you don't trust your striking enough. If that's what you're saying, then we agree. If you're saying that you need grappling to facilitate striking, then we disagree, and you dont truat your striking enough

That's like saying using a jab to set up a cross is because you don't trust your cross enough. I can't agree with that assessment.

 

[Martial D]

Hmm. Not mentioning any names but it's really obvious at least a couple of you weighing in here have never been in a situation where you are striking and the opponent is trying to hit you back.

There's some serious fantasy narration going on here.

Grabbing punches, or grabbing OFF of punches, are both the fare of movies and video games rather than reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hmm. Not mentioning any names but it's really obvious at least a couple of you weighing in here have never been in a situation where you are striking and the opponent is trying to hit you back.

There's some serious fantasy narration going on here.

Grabbing punches, or grabbing OFF of punches, are both the fare of movies and video games rather than reality.

I'd rather use a punch to enter, then grab (probably with the other hand), rather than trying to combine the two in a single movement, but combining them isn't really fantasy.

Grabbing someone off the end of your own punch is far from impossible, if you're willing to alter the punch to allow it (which often compromises the punch, as someone else pointed out). The simplest example I can think of is working inside with an uppercut that then grabs clothing to restrict movement, or a hook that slips to a clinch or similar. I'd think of those more as recoveries when the punch lands badly.

And boxers trap punching arms from time to time, so even that isn't really fantasy (though certainly not the highest reliability).

 

[skribs]

Hmm. Not mentioning any names but it's really obvious at least a couple of you weighing in here have never been in a situation where you are striking and the opponent is trying to hit you back.

There's some serious fantasy narration going on here.

Grabbing punches, or grabbing OFF of punches, are both the fare of movies and video games rather than reality.

I have, and I have. If you can't, that's a flaw in your approach to the technique, and not in the technique itself.

 

[skribs]

Yup. So you're grappling to set up a strike, because you don't trust your striking enough. If that's what you're saying, then we agree. If you're saying that you need grappling to facilitate striking, then we disagree, and you dont truat your striking enough

No, I trust my skills as a martial artist to put me in the most advantaged position possible. I want to isolate my attacker's limbs and put him into a position where he can't strike back as easily. It's not about what techniques I do and don't trust. It's about having a strategy and using techniques from both categories to accomplish that strategy.

What do you have to prove by limiting yourself to only striking or only grappling? Lots of arts mix the two, and I've never heard anyone say "Muay Thai fighters don't know how to strike, because they clinch."

 

[Martial D]

I'd rather use a punch to enter, then grab (probably with the other hand), rather than trying to combine the two in a single movement, but combining them isn't really fantasy.

Grabbing someone off the end of your own punch is far from impossible, if you're willing to alter the punch to allow it (which often compromises the punch, as someone else pointed out). The simplest example I can think of is working inside with an uppercut that then grabs clothing to restrict movement, or a hook that slips to a clinch or similar. I'd think of those more as recoveries when the punch lands badly.

And boxers trap punching arms from time to time, so even that isn't really fantasy (though certainly not the highest reliability).

Well that's part of it..the punch that is a grab isn't really a punch..it's disguised as a punch.

If you are rotating into or stepping into a strike your weight and momentum are all wrong for clinching and grabbing. There are serious mechanical differences at play.

As for trapping in boxing, it's generally executed against a stationary guard rather than an incoming punch. A decent punch will be back to chamber long before you can work out the angle it's coming from much less trap it.

 

[Gweilo]

I want to isolate my attacker's limbs and put him into a position where he can't strike back as easily. It's not about what techniques I do and

 

[skribs]

If you are rotating into or stepping into a strike your weight and momentum are all wrong for clinching and grabbing. There are serious mechanical differences at play.

This is completely false. Most of our strikes in our TKD defense training set you up in the perfect position to execute a throw.

 

[skribs]

@Gweilo I don't think you got what you wanted into that post.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It could also mean you're more confident in THEIR striking than THEIR grappling, so you go to where they seem weaker.

That's just a way of rewording what I was saying. If you believe your striking is better than theirs, stick with striking and don't pull. If you believe your grappling is better than theirs, take the opening to pull. If you think their striking is better than yours and their grappling is better than yours, that's when you should be mixing the two together.

So either way you are trying to get to grappling range, because that's where your confidence in that fight is, or you're trying to bounce around, because you're not confident. Keep in mind that the confidence I'm referring to is fight dependent. Most of the time I'm more confident in my striking, so you won't see me doing anything to try to change it to grappling. If I'm going against a world ranked kickboxer, or anyone where I'm getting my *** whooped, I'm going to try to swap to grappling. If I find out that he's also a judo black belt, I'm going to be trying to switch back and forth and change ranges as much as possible, to create an opening. But I wouldn't bother doing that and risk giving him an opening, if I'm clearly besting him at striking (or grappling).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's like saying using a jab to set up a cross is because you don't trust your cross enough. I can't agree with that assessment.

If anything, the comparison would be using a jab to set up a cross is because you don't trust your jab enough. I'm guessing that's what you meant though.

But there's two issues IMO with that statement. First is that a jab/cross combo is a bit different than striking/grappling, since those are entirely different spheres. If you throw a cross, you can easily throw another jab. If you pull someone in, you'd have to reestablish punching range.

The second issue is that in a sense, you're right. The reason you throw your cross is because you don't trust that you can win the fight with just a jab. Or at least you don't want to try doing that. Which is fair, most of the time you won't win a fight with just a jab. But if you trust your jab enough for the entire fight, the cross is unnecessary. (I can actually see multiple reasons to throw the cross-you enjoy it more, you want to end the fight quicker, etc., but that's why this is the second issue not the first )

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

No, I trust my skills as a martial artist to put me in the most advantaged position possible. I want to isolate my attacker's limbs and put him into a position where he can't strike back as easily. It's not about what techniques I do and don't trust. It's about having a strategy and using techniques from both categories to accomplish that strategy.

What do you have to prove by limiting yourself to only striking or only grappling? Lots of arts mix the two, and I've never heard anyone say "Muay Thai fighters don't know how to strike, because they clinch."

Post # 36 was a response to gerry, but also works as a response to you here, I believe.

 

[skribs]

That's just a way of rewording what I was saying. If you believe your striking is better than theirs, stick with striking and don't pull. If you believe your grappling is better than theirs, take the opening to pull. If you think their striking is better than yours and their grappling is better than yours, that's when you should be mixing the two together.

So either way you are trying to get to grappling range, because that's where your confidence in that fight is, or you're trying to bounce around, because you're not confident. Keep in mind that the confidence I'm referring to is fight dependent. Most of the time I'm more confident in my striking, so you won't see me doing anything to try to change it to grappling. If I'm going against a world ranked kickboxer, or anyone where I'm getting my *** whooped, I'm going to try to swap to grappling. If I find out that he's also a judo black belt, I'm going to be trying to switch back and forth and change ranges as much as possible, to create an opening. But I wouldn't bother doing that and risk giving him an opening, if I'm clearly besting him at striking (or grappling).

If I'm in a street fight, I have no idea what their strengths and weaknesses are. I'm going to use my style, which I am confident in, which uses both grappling and striking.

I don't want to be in a fight long enough to learn what their strengths are.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If I'm in a street fight, I have no idea what their strengths and weaknesses are. I'm going to use my style, which I am confident in, which uses both grappling and striking.

I don't want to be in a fight long enough to learn what their strengths are.

So you're more confident in combining them, then you are with either on their own.