what easier to learn from books- striking or grappling?

[TJS]

your opinion? thoughts? I think most agree there is a pretty limited amount you can learn from any source without a school/teacher but i would just like opinions.

[WolverineGuy]

I would imagine grappling is a bit easier, but it all depends on the book

[delta1]

I'd say striking. But you won't learn either well.

 

Grappling, whether you mean locks or rolling in the dirt, has too many little positional details to really get the hang of it from a book. On the other hand, any one can understand "Make a fist, punch his nose." Actually doing it might be another matter, but you can easily understand the gross concept.

[martialartsresearcher]

to tell the truth. the MAs books are not the best way to go. heck, you would be better off learning martial arts from an ancient scroll than learning from to days books on martial arts. i once tried to teach myself wing chun. but i lost intrest sense. but if you think it an option to learn MAs from a book, than by all means,do it. its very hard to learn from a book. but still... philosophical martial arts books have some value to them. because, its more than just learning martial moves, as you already know. philosophical MAs books don't teach you moves. but the books that teach you move, don't teach you the meaning behind every move you learn. so if you can, get a martial arts teacher. at least try and find a sparring partner. but never the less, if your self-motivated go and learn from a silly book. otherwise, just find a MAs school somewhere in your area. ya know? anyways, good luck. and happy training. see ya.

[battousai16]

i would say grappling, for the soul reason of it being easier to practice striking on your own than grappling. it's kind of irrelivant, however, since both have so many technicalities it'd be nearly impossible to learn either from a book.

[G95champ]

I would think striking would be simpler to learn from a book only because you can see pictures better. As to in grappleing you can feel the person on top of you. From my limited experience on the ground the one thing I know is to be a good grappler you got to remain calm. I guess thats true for anything but in striking you are only in contact for a split second. Thus I would think it is simpler to see how to throw a kick, punch, smash, etc. But in grappeling their is so much weight shifting, and balanced I would think learing it from a book would be very hard.

 

I do have a few BJJ tapes I bought several years ago and unless you got someone to work with their useless. But anytime I want to shadow box or learn a kata from a book I just get up and do it.

[aefibird]

I'd hate to try to learn either from a book without having dojo experience as well, but I'd say that striking would be (slightly) easier to learn from a book than grappling, because at least with striking you can practise punching and kicking on your own. I think trying to practise grappling on your own would be very very difficult!

[Sasori_Te]

Niether if you want to do them properly. punching properly is every bit as intricate as grappling done properly. Books show you hand position and maybe some sort of mechanical movement to deliver. Where as to be an effective striker you need to be relaxed and know target areas as well as strategy to get the punch delivered to the target. The same goes with grappling. You not only need to know the proper mechanics (some books) but you need to know the strategy to employ the mechanics. There are many other fine details to both of these examples but I have chosen to use these to demonstrate my point. If you have trained for 10 or 15 years and you already have an idea about these fine points, by all means pick up a book and expand your horizons. If not, go learn from a good instructor. Note that I said good instructor because a lot of instructors these days are no better than trying to learn from a book. They don't understand any of the underlying concepts either.

[martialartsresearcher]

good point, te. to me, learning from a bad instructor is just as; if not more worse, than learning from books. see ya.

[delta1]

My intro to the martial arts was 'Bruce Tegners' Complete Guide to Self Defense'. How many of you are willing to date yourselves by saying you remember him? Bruce Tegners' books actually weren't too bad, considering that at the time martial arts in the US were still in their infancy. I have to smile when I look back at practicing on my own from a book, but for the era and the limmitations of self study, Mr T did a credable job. I still don't recomend learning from only books and/or videos. But don't completely discount them, either- they can be a great reference, a source of new ideas or different perspectives, and can keep you going if you find yourself temporarily without a school. They are also a great intro for some dumb kid that wants to whup up on the local bully; though the kid will soon figure out he'd best take a board to the bully and enroll in a class.