questions about shoot fighting?

[Sid Vicious]

i think i have finally found something i want to do besides kickboxing but i still have some questions about it. I think shoot fighting would match my personality perfectly and i think i know what it is about.

 

What i think it is:

 

Basicly everything goes. Its a mix of striking and grappling. I also think its about as close to a street fight proven martial arts that there is.

 

I know more about it but i cant quite seem to find the right way to word it. I would appreciate any feedback on this.

 

One more question:

 

Would shoot fighting even by classified as a martial art?

[ckdstudent]

I believe it already is classified as a martial art.

 

As for the proven street fighting art, its hard to call. I've never seen a shootfighter in action on the street so I couldn't say, however I will say that if you try to shoot against an experienced striker you're going to find yourself bruised, and against a grappler I'd imagine you're fairly likely to be hurled quite a distance across the road.

[Kensai]

What is shootfighting ckd, more specifically what is a "shoot"?

 

Take Care.

[Bon]

I think 'shoot' refers to the shoot when you shoot in, lol..

 

You 'shoot' in on your opponent and go for a single leg, for example.

[AndrewGreen]

Shootfighting is the style of Bart Vale, and the name is a registered trademark. His website is:

 

http://www.2shoot.com/

 

Basically it is Muay Thai combined with submission wretling.

 

Many of the top fighters in UFC and other events referred to their style as "shootfighting", but the name being trademarked has stopped this. Ken Shamrock was called a shootfighter durring the early days.

 

As a result you'll also see "shootwrestling", "shootboxing", "pancrase", "NHB", "MMA", "Hybrid fighting", and all sorts of other names, but all are basically the same thing.

 

Shooting is as Bon said, shooting in. Going for the single or double leg.

 

Jimmy have you ever had an experienced person shoot at you? You don't get to stop it with strikes. For the most part you either sprawl or find yourself on your back real fast.

 

Shooting has proved its effectivness in MMA and NHB fights time and time again, but I guess those strikers and grapplers weren't very experienced.

[ckdstudent]

No, I'd guess that they're in a ring.

 

I said that I didn't have experience of shootfighters, and was simply working from what I did know. I've had people trying to move in to take me down to the ground before, and I've had people trying to sweep my legs. Whether or not they were shooting is irrelevant, I was simply quoting from my own, personal experience and assumptions based on what I knew.

 

I could ask whether you've had an experienced striker try to stop your shoot, but it wouldn't really help any since you are not a whole style to yourself, merely a person.

[AndrewGreen]

No, I'd guess that they're in a ring.

 

Tell me, what is the difference between shooting in the rind and shooting on the street?

 

and as for having stopped a tackle, if a untrained person throws a punch at a grappler and it doesn't land, does that mean punching doesn't work?

[ckdstudent]

Okay, I was under the impression that shootfighting was moving in, trying to grab, in a similar method to a tackle.

 

If I'm wrong then please correct me.

 

However I'd imagine that if a shoot is similar to tackle, there's something of a limit on the variations you could use. With punches there's a thousand and one different permutations and methods of throwing them. Charging in to try and yank someone's feet away I just can't see that much variation, if I'm wrong then please do correct me.

 

The difference is simple. The ring is a perfectly clear area, there are no obstacles. It is an even surface. Your opponent does not have access to glass bottles, rocks, or allies. There is no bouncer moving in to drag you away. There is plentiful lighting so you can clearly see your opponent. There is nowhere that your opponent can dodge to beyond a certain range. There is nothing on the ground for you to slip or trip on. Need any more?

[AndrewGreen]

However I'd imagine that if a shoot is similar to tackle, there's something of a limit on the variations you could use. With punches there's a thousand and one different permutations and methods of throwing them. Charging in to try and yank someone's feet away I just can't see that much variation, if I'm wrong then please do correct me.

 

There are as many different ways to take a person down as there are to punch them.

The difference is simple. The ring is a perfectly clear area, there are no obstacles. It is an even surface. Your opponent does not have access to glass bottles, rocks, or allies. There is no bouncer moving in to drag you away. There is plentiful lighting so you can clearly see your opponent. There is nowhere that your opponent can dodge to beyond a certain range. There is nothing on the ground for you to slip or trip on. Need any more?

 

All irrelevant, just how this will effect shooting. You said a striker would easily deal with this, What could they do differently outside of the ring?

 

Even surface with no obstacles: so instead of landing on a flat smooth floor with some give to it, your hitting a much harder surface.

 

Weapons: Not always there, if they are both of us have access,

 

Bouncer: Only in a barfight, that doesn't stack things against me though.

 

Allies: I have friends too, why always the assumption that he Always will and I never will?

 

Slip or trip on: Are you saying this increases the odds of it going to the ground?

 

Lighting, we both can see or we both can't. But couldn't that make it harder to see the shoot coming?

 

Nowhere to dodge: Shooting works well in the middle of the ring. There are space restrictions in bars and allies to. Which was part of your claim, remember clear area, smooth surface...)

 

"What if..." games can get out of hand as this one will. Shooting is a proven method of taking a person down. Even if they are a skilled striker. It may not always be the best option, but it does work.

 

Whether or not that is a tactically good idea at the time depends on the situation. But a few "What if..."'s where it isn't doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

 

What if all you want to do is restrain this person, without serious injury? Striking won't accomplish this. Shoot, get a dominant position, hold it and stay close, that will.

 

Striking has a place, grappling has a place. Doing both is always the best plan, unless of course you train for a competition sport which only allows one.

[ckdstudent]

The what ifs were to differentiate between real life and ring. Shooting or no, what works in the ring won't necessarily work in real life.

There are as many different ways to take a person down as there are to punch them.

I can accept that. How many ways are there to shoot in on them to take them down? I know about takedowns, I've learnt those. Its the shoot I'm not sure about. As I keep saying it may be because I misunderstand what's meant by shoot, in which case I pin the blame on those who've explained it to me. However, from what I have been told it consists of simply darting into range, I'm not concerned about the take down, its the move into range where I'd consider someone vulnerable.