Which should be first?

[lklawson]

If you and I are face to face in a confrontation

So now it's a fight between you and I? Well, OK.

it takes me but a split second to strike one of several vital areas that will either end the confrontation or disorient you before I can follow with another split second strike. You will struggle mightily to get anybody in an effective type of choke due to the fact that you have to actually get into position in the first place.

Honestly, that you write this only tells me that you really have no frame of reference from which to speak about grappling, choking, or arm-bars. Frankly, to be uncomfortably blunt, it means you don't know how, when, or why chokes are applied.

All I can say is go get some training in a Judo or BJJ (or CaCC if you can find it) school and then you can discuss the merits of one vs. the other from an informed position.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[SENC-33]

So now it's a fight between you and I? Well, OK.

Honestly, that you write this only tells me that you really have no frame of reference from which to speak about grappling, choking, or arm-bars. Frankly, to be uncomfortably blunt, it means you don't know how, when, or why chokes are applied.

All I can say is go get some training in a Judo or BJJ (or CaCC if you can find it) school and then you can discuss the merits of one vs. the other from an informed position.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I have made my real world background and history pretty clear (door man, bouncer, event security). I have seen it all on the ground with the exception of a choke, arm bar or joint lock. Seen a lot of striking from every position imaginable and some heads kicked in.....

If I ever get the notion to put on a pair of PJ's and roll around on the floor tying myself up like a south philly pretzel I'll get some BJJ training.......

 

[lklawson]

I have made my real world background and history pretty clear (door man, bouncer, event security). I have seen it all on the ground with the exception of a choke, arm bar or joint lock. Seen a lot of striking from every position imaginable and some heads kicked in.....

If I ever get the notion to put on a pair of PJ's and roll around on the floor tying myself up like a south philly pretzel I'll get some BJJ training.......

Sorry, I'm not impressed. When you know where, when, and why chokes are applied then you can intelligently discuss what, if any, their shortcomings may or may not be in comparison with some alternate solution. However, by your response above, it's clear that you have no foundation of information about the techniques you are arguing against. It's the equivalent of telling me to check the ATF levels in my 5 Speed Standard. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

Frankly, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you on the subject of chokes. You just don't know the subject.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[SENC-33]

Sorry, I'm not impressed. When you know where, when, and why chokes are applied then you can intelligently discuss what, if any, their shortcomings may or may not be in comparison with some alternate solution. However, by your response above, it's clear that you have no foundation of information about the techniques you are arguing against. It's the equivalent of telling me to check the ATF levels in my 5 Speed Standard. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

Frankly, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you on the subject of chokes. You just don't know the subject.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I can talk chokes with you all day long but this thread is about whether or not you should study ground fighting or striking first. I tend to relate things to the real world including things that work better than others and I have had a pretty substantial real world classroom to study from. Just telling it like it is.......

 

[lklawson]

I can talk chokes with you all day long

No, you can't. Because you don't know anything about them.

Just telling it like it is.......

No, you're just telling it like you think it is on a subject (chokes) for which you have no fundamental understanding. There was a LOT of things you could have chosen as a refutation for chokes, some of which I would have readily agreed with. Instead of leading with any of the things that people who understand chokes know are actually downsides of trying to choke, you instead chose the EMFG and "vital point strike you while we're standing and facing each other." To which people who actually know chokes go, "WTF?"

You're trying to argue about chokes form a position of ignorance and it is, unfortunately for you, showing. It's so bad that you've now sunk to "I'm a bouncer!" and "you wear pajamas" as your main line arguments.

Seriously, friend, just stop. Just say, "OK, I don't know anything about chokes" and move on.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

this thread is about whether or not you should study ground fighting or striking first. ......

This thread is about striking and grappling. The grappling is more than just the ground fight. You have to be able to take your opponent down first

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzA2Mjg0ODUy.html

before you can talk about

- take off,

- following on striking, or

- ground game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2bSROvcQCQ&feature=youtu.be

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

There is no right answer to this question. Other then it depends on where you live if the local grappling arts school sucks and there is a good striking art school then pick striking if the schools are flipped then take grappling.

I think that this is the best answer on the thread.

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

"Superior"? Hmm... not sure about that. If you're better at it, yeah... if you're a better striker, probably not. But really, there isn't a single skill set that's "superior" to another... but there are training methodologies that are superior to others.

The grappling art has no forms. You learn one throw after another.

No forms? Really? Well, I guess the primarily grappling systems that I study, involving some 500+ kata (forms) aren't really grappling arts, then? Learning a throw then another isn't learning a grappling art, it's learning a (basic, rudimentary) throwing skill. Big difference. In other words, the art is not the techniques.

You also learn that the grappling art cannot be learned "solo".

I guess I waste a lot of time training it all solo, then...

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.

Yeah... I'd largely advise against it, though. Of course, it depends on the art itself, a number of systems I train obviously have the striking and the grappling sharing a large proportion of mechanics, but the footwork and stance of boxing is quite different to that found in wrestling (as an example). You can compromise both in order to come up with a half-way measure to combine them, but it's no longer actually giving you the best from either (MMA being a good example, actually).

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.

If there is no "style boundary", as you refer to it, there is no art. A martial art is defined by it's "style boundary". It's what gives it it's methodology, it's context, it's approach, it's technical makeup, it's tactics, it's strategies, and so on.

From your grappling art training, you will understand that the closer the distance, the safer that you will be.

And from my knife defence training, I learn that that's simply not always true. Additionally, if you're up against a more skilled grappler, being in close really isn't going to be safer at all... it's all to do with context and the situation at the time.

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.

Depends entirely on what your aims are. Mine is more self defence orientated, so always moving in towards an opponent isn't a good idea... for a sporting system, sure.

The grappling art can be learned in a safe sport environment.

But striking can't? Maybe you should tell all the (sport) karate, TKD, boxing clubs around the place that what they're doing isn't a safe sporting 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".

Sure... and I can get you striking solidly, and effectively, as well as learning how to apply it in reactive and pro-active methods, drilled and trained in a few weeks. Hell, I've done that for people before. And I'd consider my arts to be more grappling heavy than striking, when all's said and done.

If self-defense is what you are looking for, the grappling art can give you that in very short period of time.

So can striking.

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", ...

Aside from the last one, provided the reasoning is understood, the comments made here are not only perfectly valid, they are essential if you consider yourself to be a martial artists, rather than just a fighter who knows some techniques.

You threw effective chokes last night on somebody who knows you, who knows you mean him no harm and doesn't actually feel threatened by you. I mean no offense so please don't take it as such but I would take your 1 night rookie challenge any day of the week (Pre-emptive knockout strike versus a simple throw)

Ha, not speaking for Kirk here, but if his approach is anything like mine, or if his training methods are anything like mine, then yeah, his training partners will feel threatened by him... and, for the record, your offer of taking up a 1 night rookie challenge doesn't really tell me anything other than that, despite your "real world experience", you have a lack of any real grasp on the differences between a challenge and a real encounter... and when your pre-emptive strike would be effective. The more aware someone is of being hit, the less effect a pre-empt has... your best chance would be to apply it when asking about the rules of the challenge... once it's on, you'll find that it's a completely different world...

In other words, ha! No.

If you and I are face to face in a confrontation it takes me but a split second to strike one of several vital areas that will either end the confrontation or disorient you before I can follow with another split second strike. You will struggle mightily to get anybody in an effective type of choke due to the fact that you have to actually get into position in the first place.

Ooh, lovely.... remembering that challenges aren't really encouraged (or, bluntly, allowed) here, the lack of understanding of both the viability of getting a single, fight-ending strike off, or how grappling works.

I can talk chokes with you all day long but this thread is about whether or not you should study ground fighting or striking first. I tend to relate things to the real world including things that work better than others and I have had a pretty substantial real world classroom to study from. Just telling it like it is.......

Yeah... grappling simply means "to seize, or hold"... nothing to do with ground work specifically.

 

[skribs]

Chris, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think you can more effectively train striking techniques solo than you can grappling techniques. The reason is that with a striking technique, it's only your body you need to control (and the opponent you need to hit). Now, that's not to say that there isn't a benefit to practicing with a partner(s), but that it is easier to practice striking on your own.

I go over my grappling techniques for TKD/Hapkido at home by myself, but it is a lot less effective than practicing in class. At home I can imagine how my opponent's joints react to the motions I am making, but I find it much easier to practice on a live person in class. My kicks, alternatively, are real easy to practice in the air or on a bag, because the technique involves my body and a target, instead of both bodies.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Wow! You guys gave good answers. I read most of your answers and I agee with under certain rules you my need to teach one or the other first. Like the example of a thirteen yr old girl that would need to learn how to strike before grapple. Especially if it is a guy that is 180lb Compared to her 70lb to 100 lb frame. I don't think wrestling with the guy would be a good idea. * Now if it is going to be a guy or girl doing mma I would say grapple first. Because usually you can eat a few licks, take a person down and then just submit them. * Honestly both should be taught at the sametime because most arts have both unless the training is for sport and then that is when rules come into play. * If you look at the heart of the question, *it really is designed to separate people into two categories. *Grapplers and Strikers

 

[TKDTony2179]

No forms? Really? Well, I guess the primarily grappling systems that I study, involving some 500+ kata (forms) aren't really grappling arts, then? Learning a throw then another isn't learning a grappling art, it's learning a (basic, rudimentary) throwing skill. Big difference. In other words, the art is not the techniques.

What forms have you done that have grappling movements? I want to do a lil research.

 

[skribs]

There are a *few* in some of the TKD forms, but its usually a hold for a strike from what I've seen. I know Judo has forms, but from what I understand (from 0 first-hand experience, mind you) is that these forms involve partners.

TKDTony, it depends on what type of grappling you're teaching. Some is based more on strength and leverage (like wrestling). Hapkido is based more on pressure points and pain compliance (although I've been told I try to wrestle when we're sparring in hapkido). I think the 60 pound girl still has a disadvantage against a 200 pound guy, but there are grappling techniques that are designed to be good no matter what your size is.

I did wrestling in middle school, though, and I know what you mean. We used to get everyone lined up according to weight, and the two smallest fight, and then the winner fights the third smallest, and the winner of that fights the fourth smallest, and so on. There were a couple guys on our team who would take on about a quarter of the team before they were simply outmuscled (and probably tired).

 

[Chris Parker]

What forms have you done that have grappling movements? I want to do a lil research.

Lots.

But, I feel, the first thing that needs to be understood is what both the terms mean... Firstly, I'm not using the term "grappling" to refer to ground work at all... I just mean grappling. The term refers to holding or seizing, and includes locks, throws, chokes, escapes, reversals, pins etc, standing or otherwise. The other term that might need some clarification is "form"... as I'm talking about Japanese kata here. These are dominantly paired training devices, rather than the longer, solo methods of other cultural systems (often stemming from China).

To that end, examples of Japanese grappling kata (similar to the types of things that I train in) are:

I train in some of these, others are related branches to what I train, and a few are simply similar examples.

 

[Mark Lynn]

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

This question is a little bit confusing in that it sounds like you are talking about different arts like a grappling art or a striking art first and then move onto the other art.

However if both are contained within a given style or schools curriculum which should be trained first?

In our (my) school striking is taught first and limited grappling 2nd. In my curriculum (TKD based) I teach striking and kicking first then start relating the techniques to off balancing moves and throws etc. etc. for instance the upward block being a block, then a forearm smash 2nd, and a then a set up for a take down, then a take down 4th etc. etc. or a downward block being a strike to the arm (as a hand release) and then later the downward block (motion) combined with footwork being a take down. For the down block example the take down is the same motion as what they have done in their kata but using it in the context of off balancing a person to the rear and throwing them down takes more skill for both parties involved (the student and their partner who takes the fall) then using it as a strike to the arm if someone grabs it.

I believe that striking is more common as an encounter develops and can used as a set up to the grappling. The vids that Chris posted shows many preemptive strikes used to set up the throw, whether to distract the person, displace the person's balance etc. etc. and then the throw or take down etc. etc.

Also with the vids posted I think those arts referenced all come from the perspective of self defense instead of competition like BJJ or MMA. This is the same view point that I set up my curriculum from, stressing and teaching things from more of a self defense view point than training for competition.

 

[lklawson]

Especially if it is a guy that is 180lb Compared to her 70lb to 100 lb frame. I don't think wrestling with the guy would be a good idea.

Trying to out-strike him isn't a good idea either. You know what gives a definitional force equalizer in the classic "70 lb girl vrs linebacker" matchup? Weapons. Give her a knife or some other weapons and a little bit of training and she'll be a lot better off than trying any sort of unarmed defense, grappling, striking, or a combination.

God created man but weapons made him equal.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[skribs]

Too bad most places a 70 pound person is going to be, those are not allowed.

Boar, interesting take on the topic.

 

[Chris Parker]

Also with the vids posted I think those arts referenced all come from the perspective of self defense instead of competition like BJJ or MMA. This is the same view point that I set up my curriculum from, stressing and teaching things from more of a self defense view point than training for competition.

Hmm, while not for competition (although the last one was from Judo...), they aren't also necessarily for self defence either, particularly not modern self defence. Martial arts have more contexts than just those two....

 

[Mark Lynn]

Hmm, while not for competition (although the last one was from Judo...), they aren't also necessarily for self defence either, particularly not modern self defence. Martial arts have more contexts than just those two....

Your right they are not necessarily for self defense or even modern self defense and there is more to the arts than just those two areas. However my comment was simply that on a plot line those vids. posted show techniques, situations etc. etc. that were closer to self defense related themes than having two people throwing flashy kicks at each other while fully padded up, or two bare chested men in shorts in a cage. I apologize for not being clear.