Kung Fu In Combat

[bushido_man96]

it's not about quantity, it's about being able to stay on your feet, for example. compete against some grapplers and you'll immediately see what I mean.

We have students that grapple or came from grappling schools & have learned there are some arts out there that can deal with a rush, single/double leg takedown, sweep or throw. Those types of grappling techniques have weakness like any other martial art technique especially when taken out of the octagon or sporting arena.

The effectiveness of counter grappling is inherent to the amount of pain/damage inflicted preventing the grappler from completing the takedown. The obstacle in demonstrating moves casually with saftey in mind is the grappler doesn't acknowledge the technique & follows through with the takedown. Then dismisses the move as ineffective. When applied with intent counter grappling is vicious.

The quality of a Hung-Ga practitoner is kinda judged by the stability of the stance & footwork.

Royce Gracie was able to do this quite effectively in the first UFC's.

[alsey]

with regards quality vs. quanitity, i think any fighter should know how to fight at all ranges of combat; from the floor to long range striking. no matter how good your takedown defence is, you can always get taken down. no matter how good your grappling is, you can always get knocked out. if you practice a style which covers all ranges, then you don't need any more quantity. if your style doesn't cover all ranges, then you want something to add to it, IMO.

[bushido_man96]

Very good points, alsey. To my knowledge, there are few styles that apply to all ranges of combat. One could argue that the bunkai in karate offers grappling as well as stand-up, but it's content is not as extensive as something like judo or BJJ has to offer.

[alsey]

i think a lot of the old styles cover all ranges, jujitsu for example. the problem with a lot of styles, such as karate, is that the system contains methods for all ranges but they're rarely practiced, if ever.

[elbows_and_knees]

it's not about quantity, it's about being able to stay on your feet, for example. compete against some grapplers and you'll immediately see what I mean.

We have students that grapple or came from grappling schools & have learned there are some arts out there that can deal with a rush, single/double leg takedown, sweep or throw. Those types of grappling techniques have weakness like any other martial art technique especially when taken out of the octagon or sporting arena.

The effectiveness of counter grappling is inherent to the amount of pain/damage inflicted preventing the grappler from completing the takedown. The obstacle in demonstrating moves casually with saftey in mind is the grappler doesn't acknowledge the technique & follows through with the takedown. Then dismisses the move as ineffective. When applied with intent counter grappling is vicious.

The quality of a Hung-Ga practitoner is kinda judged by the stability of the stance & footwork.

he doesn't dismiss anything. The point of the takedown is to get you going backward so you can be taken down. Once you are uprooted and going backward, no strike you attempt will have any effect at all. the shoot doesn't rely on safety. you change level under a strike or follow a strike on its return path. there is much strategy to it. you don't need a lot of room to shoot, so you have a very small window with which to strike me before you fall. if the strike isn't enough to stop me cold, you go down.

stability isn't a huge issue. the body has eight directions of offbalance and throws and takedowns are just like strikes - you use them quickly and in combinations. for example, if I shoot in, but before I have you completely wrapped up, you step back into a bow an arrow, a double leg is now useless. However, you are now open for a single, for an outer leg reap, etc. transition. the only real "counter grappling" - I hate that term - is to learn to grapple, or at least train with them on a regular basis. A double leg is NOT a rush, a football style tackle, etc.

[elbows_and_knees]

i think a lot of the old styles cover all ranges, jujitsu for example. the problem with a lot of styles, such as karate, is that the system contains methods for all ranges but they're rarely practiced, if ever.

I disagree that a lot of them do. the old thai striking sytems lacked ground work. chinese systems have a distinct lack of it. there is some found in systems like di tang chuan, but largely what you see in most styles in ground striking, which isn't the same thing. Even the chinese grappling style shuai chiao lacks ground work. Korean styles lack groundwork, other than yudo and posiibly hapkido, which are both adapted from japanese styles.

[alsey]

i was thinking jujitsu, hapkido, and pankration mainly, but yeah, i guess its not a lot really. i didn't know that about shuai chiao, i always thought of that as a grappling and ground fighting thing.

[elbows_and_knees]

nah, shuai chiao is all standup. Their main goal is to throw you on your head and incapacitate anything else they can in the process.

[HG]

Everyone has their opinions. I'm not bashing grappling - it's a proven method. I'm also going to defend the effectiveness of what I've experienced first hand. Any movement can be countered in a multitude of ways.

[elbows_and_knees]

I don't disagree with that. but in my days training cma, I have personally seen grappling as the most effective way to learn how to defend against grappling.