Getting Behind Our Attacker

[Spartacus Maximus]

Forgetting the importance of setups from locks or throws is more common than one might expect.

So much consideration and attention is given to setting up striking techniques and the very ideas of setting up a technique is often more frequently associated with martial arts focussed on striking.

In grappling/throwing/joint locking systems such as classical jujutsu or aikido, the set-up is much less obvious in training. A common criticism is that many of the techniques would do poorly on a genuine attack situation.

It may not be explicit or obvious in the way these systems approach training, but the truth is that most if not, all grappling/throwing or locking techniques are only possible and greatly enhanced when preceded by some kind of strike to decrease the attacker’s ability to resist being thrown or having a lock applied. 

Judo for instance, used to be taught with strikes in its early stages. Nowadays one would be hard pressed to find a judo dojo where these ´lost techniques ´ are still taught. Even in Japan’s official Kodokan dojos it is no longer a norm and quite rare. 

[sensei8]

4 hours ago, Spartacus Maximus said:

Forgetting the importance of setups from locks or throws is more common than one might expect.

Yes. That comes about from not having matured in techniques yet, as well as being afraid.

Imho!!

[Spartacus Maximus]

One thing that always seemed odd as a non-practicing observer of grappling/throwing systems; is the way almost nobody(including those practicing these) ever brings the question of how and what happens before and leading up to the moment the throw/lock is applied. The only part shown/taught are the actual throws/locks.

Unsurprisingly, the more focus there is on competition/sporting grappling, the less there is on set-ups that have a key role in how effective the throws/locks will be. Little things like striking to momentarily stun or unbalance an attacker.