In my mind fighting is all about flowing between ranges (I also study Kali and such flow is vital, especially with the weapons). For me the point is to only know what tools you can't use in the various ranges, as a teaching point.
KPM said:
No, Kali uses a variation of that though. I was using that simply as a generic visual tool to break down the difference I see between being in trapping and grappling range. I find it useful when explaining how WC works (bridging from not being able to touch to fighting) to those who know little to nothing about WC.
The problem is his WC/VT isn't every lineage and there is lies the problem. Some teach bridging from striking to grappling, if appropriate.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of jiu jitsu. No reasonable art expects people to follow a template. "Applications" are simply ways of using a given technique. Once a student has some comprehension, they tend to work in what I call "the grey areas" between techniques, borrowing a bit from one and a bit from another, moving based upon principles rather than techniques.
Isn't the overlap always pretty big, though? Grappling range is also elbow/knee striking range (the is where Muay Thai shines). Standard striking range is where the projections (throws that send people away) live. Kicking range is also shooting (not the gun version) range.
Why? Couldn't it be created by someone who understands grappling (probably from another source) and is highly proficient in VT?
This is a good question. I can't speak to why taking someone down would be better than not doing so withing VT strategy. What I can say is that arts with no grappling tend to struggle against grappling, so adding some simple, effective grappling would tend to allow VT to evolve better defense against grappling attacks, which would seem to be in alignment with the effectiveness principle.
Your assertion that it's optimal presumes that it will always be so. I know of no system that has presented good evidence of an unchanging standard remaining relevant, much less optimal.
Again, you're assuming all students have the time and money to pursue a second art, entirely ignoring the points I made about that issue. For VT to be optimally effective, it should be looking at what's most effective within its own sphere, not assuming students will fill gaps elsewhere.
So, what of the folks who can't feasibly train two arts?
Your idea that it is rudimentary at best is an assumption that in my experience is false. The ability to execute a throw, a take down, apply a wrist or elbow lock, an arm bar. These are all in the forms, as taught by my current lineage, and when applied are quite similar to the same maneuvers I learned in Aikido and Judo. Now I am going to be ground fighting like a BJJ guy? Hell no, but for my professional purposes I in a million years do not want to do that, I want to know how to avoid it, which I am also taught in a very holistic (coherent) way. However it can, and does work... Though I have the time and money to study Kali to augment it.
