View Full Version : Style including striking AND grappling
Hi all,
New to this forum. Seems excellently run and full of good info, so thanks.
Did Wado-Ryu karate for a couple of years ten years ago. Want to start trainining again and would like to find MA style which combines striking/kicking with grappling, holds and ground technique. Although there is tons of info out there, hard to find basic details of each style going to check if it includes grappling/ground work. :confused:
Heard that Shohei-Ryu karate includes some grappling. Seen refs to MMA in this forum but unsure what this is ('Mixed Martial Arts? - if this is mainly an American style is there a UK equivalent?). Are there forms of Ju-Jitsu which include or emphasise striking?
Thanks in advance for any info,
Hal Satterthwaite
Andrew Green
05-11-2004, 12:19
Mixed Martial arts is a generic name ;)
Others include Shootfighting, Shooto, Pancration, Vale Tudo, NHB, and a few others.
Here ya go:
http://sfuk.tripod.com/sfukmainframe.html
Cliff Hargrave
05-11-2004, 12:30
In my experience, whenever you find an art that offers both striking and grappling, you get a lower grade of each. I am speaking only from my own experience and I am sure there are exceptions to this.
I have had much better luck training them in different classes and then making time to practice them together in an informal setting (like getting together with friends). It is becoming common here for Jiu-Jitsu schools to offer kickboxing classes and Karate dojos to offer grappling classes.
It's great if you can find a gym that offers both striking and grappling classes separately. It takes a little more effort in time management but it is well worth it. Most people will find that they excell in one or the other but rarely both. By training them separately you can emphasis the one you do the best while building a good base in the other one.
Danzan Ryu Jujitsu study's both and does a very good job of covering both. When you start studying DZR, you start learning rolls, falls, throws, joint locks and escapes. Later, you move to the ground, and do a lot of ground work. Then around brown belt, you start learning combinations that finish the opponent after being thrown, but before they hit the ground. Most people don't realize how much striking there is in DZR, because you don't see a lot of striking practice till after BB, and most of those classes are not open to the public. People get the impression that DZR is mainly about throwing and locking. However, if you go back and study Okazaki's life (founder) you will learned that he had a chinese instructor who taught him the art of "boxing with the intent to kill." Okazaki named his system Danzan Ryu in honor of that instructor. So, why does he put the strikes after BB? There are many theories about why he did this. Here are some that I think are valid.
1. he was teaching in america. Here, we like boxing, punching kicking. For some reason these come naturally to us. He wanted to teach his students grappling first, because it was harder, against our tendency to punch.
2. By not teaching his students how to punch properly, when they practiced defending a punch, they would see untrained punches a lot. At first, this does not make sense. But, on the street, in how many fights have you seen where people punch correctly? Not many, if ever. ( NHB aside, most people never go there ) He was teaching his students how to defend against the type of punch they would most likely see on the street.
3. By using grappling correctly, you can get to positions where striking is very effective, even deadly. If you are in the correct position, and have all the slack taken out of your opponents body, then it really takes very little force to seriously damage or kill. The hardest part, is getting to that position.
The beauty of his system is that Okazaki teaches you to strike very effectively through teaching you how to grapple. Even when we work on massage, we are learning to strike better. ( learning targets, limits, pressure points, muscle groups.....)
So, yes you can find an art out there that teaches both very well. But, in order to teach both well, you have to be patient. One of the best strikers I have ever seen (fastest, most accurate and most power) is my sensei, a yodan. Just the other day, he showed me how one of our chokes is really a knockout punch designed to dislocate the jaw bone. (and a cross between kung fu and western boxing. )
Just crosstrain in both.
Do some boxing and/or muay thai
Do some wrestling and/or submission wrestling
You'd be 10x better off than going to some school were they don't train or compete effectively in both.
Andrew Green
05-11-2004, 23:52
In my experience, whenever you find an art that offers both striking and grappling, you get a lower grade of each. I am speaking only from my own experience and I am sure there are exceptions to this.
The problem with training them seperate is that things work different when everything is integrated.
The way I teach to pass guard in MMA is illegal in grappling only. The way I teach to pass guard in grappling will get you hit and probably swept in MMA...
I think the best option is to train both together, from day one.
Of course not many schools do this...
Then train them in isolation in order to develop specific skills.
Same as in any of those areas individually.
Ex. If an instructor taught only Guard, and another mount, and another side mount you would get all 3 better then integrated. But you would miss the important part, how to integrate them.
But since very few do this, very few know how to teach it. But that is changing, and will get better in the next few years as the "style" grows and evolves.
In Systema we work from stand up, on the ground, sitting down, pretty much anything we can think of!
www.systemauk.com
the little jitsuka
05-12-2004, 08:03
hey hal, lucky you, there are loads of martial arts clubs in london, some even have their headquaters there, so you shouldnt have any difficulty finding a dojo or gym. Systema sounds cool. I know for a fact that there are loads of jujitsu clubs in the city centre, mostly uni clubs but you can still train with them. do a Google word search.
ste mather :bow:
In my experience, whenever you find an art that offers both striking and grappling, you get a lower grade of each. I am speaking only from my own experience and I am sure there are exceptions to this.
Wow, I never thought of that. I can't really comment, however, since I have also trained stand-up and grappling separately...mostly out of issue with finding a school that teaches both. I guess I was under the impression that teaching both at the same time trains people to be more-complete martial artists.
The problem with training them seperate is that things work different when everything is integrated.
An excellent point.
Also by running separate classes, you risk getting people who are only interested in stand-up at your stand-up classes, and only people who are interested in grappling at your grappling classes. Thereby completely missing the intent of offering both (that being, I should hope, to train people to be complete martial artists).
When I teach (being primarilly a Taekwondo/Karate school) I tend to run most of the class as stand-up. At the end, I'll usually run 30 minutes or so of grappling. And when I teach self defense, we ALWAYS end-up on the ground.
Actually our Head Instructor got a little miffed at me for a while, because he thought I was teaching too much grappling (this is what led me to join-up with a BJJ school, additionally). He has flat-out said that he doesn't want to train our students to be sumission fighters. To which I stated something to the effect of, "fine, but there's no way our students will learn to defend against grappling, unless they start to learn how to grapple".
So, I see it as a necessity to teach both.
Cliff Hargrave
05-12-2004, 08:13
But since very few do this, very few know how to teach it. But that is changing, and will get better in the next few years as the "style" grows and evolves.
See that is the point I was making. While some folks may "claim" to address both in their styles, they really don't do it very well. And I am talking about the new wave of Vale Tudo/UFC/MMA type schools. Even the pro schools like the Lion's Dens and such have separate kickboxing teachers, grappling teachers, etc.
I am advocating a three pronged approach.
1. striking
2. grappling
3. combining
Also the goals of the person need to be taken into consideration. Are they just wanting a well rounded self defense system or are they an aspiring UFC star? The way you pass the guard in the street may be different from the way you do it in a cage or on a mat. MMA is still a small market and you have a much better chance of finding a specialized school than a MMA school.
I think we are pretty much on the same page except for the beginning.
Also, almost every MMA star started out with a specific skill first. They were either a BJJer, kickboxer, or wrestler first then learned to combine the skills.
Neo-traditional styles like Danzan-Ryu are just what I was talking about in my first post. While they do grapple, it isn't on the same level as the current BJJ based grapplng, and waiting until black belt before learning the "good" striking seems to be in contrast to the original question.
For us the question is not learning a new set of skills for each range - be it kicking, punching, clinch or ground, but in adapting our base principles for each range or situation.
I've heard some people say they would just use their standing principles for ground, for example, but unless you get down there and train it, it ain't gonna happen in real life. You also have to make sure you have good base principles to work from too.
Cross training can be ok, but my concern is how you transition between each art / range, particularly if they work from a different mindset. Also be aware wether or not the work is primarily sports orientated.
One other thing to consider is does the style train only against itself? For example will the boxing club train against grapplers or just against their own style?
cheers
================
Neo-traditional styles like Danzan-Ryu are just what I was talking about in my first post. While they do grapple, it isn't on the same level as the current BJJ based grapplng, and waiting until black belt before learning the "good" striking seems to be in contrast to the original question.
================
Here, you have to look at the goals. DZR is not a sport oriented system. It is a street oriented system. Comparing our grappling skills to BJJ really depends on what you consider grappling to be. If grappling includes take downs and throws, the DZR is way ahead of BJJ. If grappling is only what happens once you are on the ground, then BJJ is way ahead. ( though, only way ahead because they practice on the ground a much higher percentage of the time. We teach all the same techniques while on the ground. ) In a bjj vs dzr match, the dzr guy probably won't go to the ground till he throws the bjj guy around a bit and strikes him a lot, while the bjj guy is going to be going for a takedown. ( which sets up some beautiful advanced throws for the dzr guy ) Of coarse, if the dzr guy is going against a boxer or muay tai guy, then the dzr guy will be taking it to the ground. We never fight the fight that the other guy trained for.
As far as not learning good punching till BB goes.... This is not in contrast with the original question. Yes, there are schools which teach grappling and striking. DZR does. The next point that was brought up was that usually, if you do find a school that teaches both, you get lower quality both. DZR does not give you lower quality of either. If you look at bjj techniques, they are a subset of what dzr has. Yes, a bjj guy will be better at those techniques, because bjj specializes in those techniques, but the techniques are the same. DZR has a larger set of techniques though, and a different game plan than bjj. The other point brought up here was that it is difficult to find someone who can truely teach you to intergrate both grappling and striking. DZR has found a way to integrate both. A good DZR guy should be able to knock you out with a punch as he throws you, and break your arm before you hit the ground and choke you out as you hit. Yes the bjj guy could probably get out of and reverse that choke once they are on the ground, but only if they practice grappling unconscious with one arm broke. The drawback to DZR is that it takes a lot of patience and dedication. You can't go get it all in 5 years or even 10 years. There is however a sacrifice that comes from learning it faster. As mentioned before, those sacrifices are either lower quality technique in both grappling and striking or lower quality combination of the two strategies.
Cliff Hargrave
05-12-2004, 11:25
Comparing our grappling skills to BJJ really depends on what you consider grappling to be. If grappling includes take downs and throws, the DZR is way ahead of BJJ. If grappling is only what happens once you are on the ground, then BJJ is way ahead. ( though, only way ahead because they practice on the ground a much higher percentage of the time. We teach all the same techniques while on the ground. )
I agree with all of that except the last sentence. You may teach the same finishing techinques, alot of styles do, but you do not even touch the same set ups, strategy, and combinations. Of course we could argue about that forever and accomplish nothing. I never seen or experienced anything like BJJ on the ground and I have been playing around with neo-traditional JJJ styles for over 20 years.
You can't go get it all in 5 years or even 10 years. There is however a sacrifice that comes from learning it faster. As mentioned before, those sacrifices are either lower quality technique in both grappling and striking or lower quality combination of the two strategies.
This is something else I dont agree with. You basically say you offer it all but don't expect to be able to use it for ten years. That is not offering it all. In contrast I could suggest someone take Karate and Judo together and after a year of training they would be light years ahead of someone training for a year in Danzan Ryu. Then ten years from now they would still be ahead of the game when your guy is just then being able to use it. And that is is with common arts like Karate and Judo. Move the intensity notch up some to BJJ and kickboxing and I believe the gap widens even more.
Here we are again discussing style vs style. That was not my intent. I have a great respect for bjj. Its just that bjj and dzr have very different strategies. To that end, our teaching methods differ, our training methods differ and we have different advantages. I am not trying to say one is better than the other, just that one is different than the other.
================
You may teach the same finishing techinques, alot of styles do, but you do not even touch the same set ups, strategy, and combinations.
================
Actually we do. We use the same positional strategy as bjj. We use many of the same set ups and many of the same combinations. ( most of these we learned from cross training with bjj people ) But we also have other set ups, other strategies and other combinations, that are quicker to satisfy our goals.
================
This is something else I dont agree with. You basically say you offer it all but don't expect to be able to use it for ten years. That is not offering it all. In contrast I could suggest someone take Karate and Judo together and after a year of training they would be light years ahead of someone training for a year in Danzan Ryu. Then ten years from now they would still be ahead of the game when your guy is just then being able to use it. And that is is with common arts like Karate and Judo. Move the intensity notch up some to BJJ and kickboxing and I believe the gap widens even more.
=================
Yes it is all offered. But is taking ten years too long to have it all? How long does it take to learn all of bjj? How long does it take to reach BB in bjj? Is BB considered the end, having the complete system? I don't think that having patience and taking a few years to learn a system, makes the system bad.
You are probably right, that a person could take karate and judo for one year and be ahead of a guy taking dzr for one year. But, I think by the time you reach 5 years of study, the dzr guy will have the advantage. The reason I think this is that dzr takes a long time to introduce the basics. But, if you gain a more complete understanding of the basics, you have a much better understanding of what you are doing. BJJ and kickboxing are a few notches up in terms of training to actually use the technique on a resisting opponent, with regard to karate and judo. This is why DZR keeps randori around. In DZR randori, the only rule is respect the tap out. While we don't go full force like bjj, we do use strikes. ( and both parties know if the strike would be effective or not ) While we don't punch with full force like the kickboxer, we do throw with full force. ( didn't Kano say something to the effect "I hit them with the biggest weapon I have, the ground." ) What we end up with is a very good training system.
So, who would win bjj vs dzr? Well, just like any competition, it depends on the rules. After all, a wrestler could probably beat a bjj guy using wrestling rules. (bjj guy would pull guard, ref would count to 3 and the wrestler wins....should sound familiar to anyone familiar with bjj history ) But, on the street dzr vs bjj, where both have 10 years of experience in their respective arts, I call it a toss up. The outcome would depend on who got to play their game. If the bjj guy plays his, he wins. If the DZR guy plays his, he wins. But, if you are mixing arts for ten years, I give the advantage to guy who studied one system for ten years, as he will have a much better prepared strategy, and while he will have fewer techniques, those techniques will be polished. ( again, this is in the street. if there are rules, then it remains in the favor of who set the rules )
To original question: in local (Sin Moo) Hapkido school there is lot of training both in grappling and striking, standing and ground, with different rules and different situations; I like ... though I must admit that it's the only art in my cv with such an attitude (other arts are more focused to some aspect than to some other), so perhaps I can't give a justified comparison .. But I like that art..
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
RA Miller
05-12-2004, 17:58
My opinion from a traditional JJ approach is similar to Cliff's. By blending such a wide range of techniques, jujutsu doesn't require the finesse or refinement that a 'pure' art might. The art covers a lot, and that's good, but our basics in each part tend to be sloppy.
Because a jujutsuka can use strikes and nerve gouges to set up throws, they rarely develope the quality of technique in the throw itself that a judoka does. Because they usually strike at such close range and after wrapping up the opponent and extending the target area, they never bother to develop the power/technique that a pure striker needs.
Because of this, I train with specialists. I sharpen my striking with strikers and my grappling with grapplers... and when they want to learn how to make them work in combination when surprised and hurt, they come to me.
The blending of the range of techniques is an art in itself and, in my opinion, where good jujutsu shines.
Rory
My opinion from a traditional JJ approach is similar to Cliff's. By blending such a wide range of techniques, jujutsu doesn't require the finesse or refinement that a 'pure' art might. The art covers a lot, and that's good, but our basics in each part tend to be sloppy.
This is exactly why DZR takes so long to introduce the strikes. This is exactly why DZR takes so much time to teach the basics. DZR is not concerned with power so much as finesse. Thats where the whole patience thing comes into play, we take the time to learn throwing, locking, choking, grappling right. Then add in the strikes. You could do it the other way as well, learn the strikes right and slowly add in the grappling, throwing, locking, choking.....
My point was that there is such a system out there that does teach both grappling and striking and covers combining the two, without lowering the quality of the techniques. The trade off is that it takes a while to get to the striking. If we got to the striking faster, we would have to sacrifice much of the time we spend learning the finesse of grappling. Just like bjj has an overall strategy, so does DZR. Just like bjj teaches certain things in a certain order, to teach and engrain their overall strategy, DZR does the same. The big difference is that the bjj strategy is different than the dzr strategy. But different does not equate better. I think we all agree that it is the fighter, not the art that prevails. The art is a set of tools, you have to know how to use the tools. I just was trying to point out the DZR has the tools that were asked for, grappling and striking, they have both quality grappling and quality striking and they have a very good system for combining the two. The drawback is that it takes some time to master, sort of like any other good art.
BUDO BULLDOG
05-13-2004, 07:58
To train in different styles that have proficiency in their respect distances of combat can be more counter productive than productive.
Many styles have different MA doctrine that actually can be confusing –or- counter to what the other style that you are attempting to integrate.
I attempted to train in Shotokan and Aikido with the goal of having a wider option base to my martial arts. I found out early in my MA experience that this did not work. These two arts are fantastic but their martial doctrines are totally different.
Suggested possibilities:
· Hapkido – taught by a real Hapkidoist – not a TKD that knows a little Hapkido.
· Kempo – This was the art that I found that best met my needs.
· Russians Martial Arts.
Good Luck
Ed Barton
Cliff Hargrave
05-13-2004, 09:50
Well I guess Rory is the only one that agrees with me :)
Mr. Barton,
You make bold statements like they are written in stone. At least I prefaced mine with "in my experience" and "my opinion." :)
I have trained in Aiki arts and Karate arts at the same time before and I never had a problem. As a matter of fact the different strategies of yielding and power blended well depending on the situations.
This is why Baskin and Robbins has 31 flavors and not just vanilla.
Mr. Satterthwaite, here are several suggestions based on a wide variety of experiences. Good luck and let us know what happens and what works best for you.
"Well I guess Rory is the only one that agrees with me--"
I'm not sure do I disagree with you.. I would say that the art I train contains different element, I'm not saying that I'm specially good at everything in it ;) ... But, because my limited experience, I'm not willing to argument that to be fault of art - I feel it very likely can be my personal problem :D :D ...
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
Seriously, I don't want to enter the debate about whether you should train in one or the other or a blend of both. In our hapkido classes, we spend time with strikes and with throws and wristlocks. We are personally lucky that a Shotokan blackbelt is training with us, and can critique our strikes. We also have an accomplished aikidoist, who can help polish the throws and such. Sensei has also acheived high rank in various striking and grappling disciplines, so he is well in command of the curriculum. I haven't felt slighted in either area, and feel like I can use either philosophy depending on the situation.
Sadly, though, I can't invite you all down to the dojo; we don't have that much room! :o
BUDO BULLDOG
05-13-2004, 16:07
Hello Cliff Hargrave,
You are correct. It was my experience. My intent was to express this and I did not.
I am glad that you where able to coordinate the two arts and found success.
Thank you for pointing this out to me.
Regards
Ed Barton
The 2 most effective styles
BRAZILIAN JIU-JITSU
&
MUAY THAI
Yea thats a problem, you have to wait in most styles to reach a certain level
So if I were you Muay Thai + BJJ my friend. PM ME if you need more help
RA Miller
05-13-2004, 20:02
Well I guess Rory is the only one that agrees with me :)
I've been in worse company.
Rory
Antares33
05-14-2004, 02:53
I tend to agree with Rory and Cliff as well, my only problem is finding enough quality people to work with integrating my skills on a regular basis. I've only got one consistent training partner, but we're getting to know each other so well in terms of style I wonder if the productivity is starting to suffer.
I think that both schools of thought have serious merit... however, its a matter of goals.
I think that working to develope strikes and grappleing seperatly and then integrating them later gives the fastest FUNCTIONAL ability.
However I also think that working in a (quote-unquote) "complete" art gives a more fluid and truely integrated system OVERALL. But you pay for it in time spent.
So, whats your needs and whats you goals?
Jeff Burger
05-14-2004, 07:36
"However I also think that working in a (quote-unquote) "complete" art gives a more fluid and truely integrated system OVERALL. But you pay for it in time spent."
The problem I had with mixing arts was flow.
If I was striking I was striking ok. When I was grappling I was grappling ok.
But going from striking to grappling I was often a little behind when the other person initiated the grappling (that I was still in striking mode).
This just takes time to blend to be aware an overcome.
I think it is alot easy to take a grappler and terach him striking than vice versa.
Grappling is great conitioning in and of itself.
That conitioning crosses over to striking in givning and taking.
Also strikers tend to want to keep distance as where grapplers feel comfortable up close.
I feel striking initially most important cause thats where you will likely start.
There is always the chance of a quick knockout and you dont want to grapple with multiple opponents.
But grappling is more important on a bigger picture cause thats where you will probably end up.
6 months of good Muay Thai will give you plenty to work on while you train your grappling.
If you were to study both at the same time Id say do more grappling than kick boxing.
Jeff
Many thanks to all for the suggestions :) .
Not yet decided on my approach but feel better informed about the options.
At minute inclining towards 'concentrate on striking form first' but some of the combined options (hapkido, systema) sound good also.
Talking with friends been told both that BJJ includes some striking and also that it is purely throws, locks and ground work. Are there different trends within BJJ?
Thanks again,
Hal Satterthwaite
Cliff Hargrave
05-14-2004, 09:40
Are there different trends within BJJ?
Thanks again,
Hal Satterthwaite
Yes. BJJ should consist of several components like:
1. Traditional BJJ with gi (throws/takedowns, positions, submissions).
2. Self Defense Techniques (standing escapes and defenses, weapon defense, some strikes, etc.).
3. Tournament BJJ with gi.
4. Tournament BJJ without the gi (submission wrestling).
5. Vale Tudo (The NHB aspect, including striking/kicking standing and on the ground)
The problem now is most schools do not teach all aspects. Most of the time they are either a tournament school or a NHB school. The school I started out at was well balanced and we did all aspects at first. Now that BJJ tournaments are so popular and springing up everywhere, our school has become a straight tournament school. I still train there every now and then because they have some really tough fighters, but the whole atmosphere has changed to a gold medal hunt. Spiderguard sweeps to omo-plata combos do not interest me much.
sooner_sadiq
05-14-2004, 14:17
try hap ki do.
robby hedrick
acarpe81
05-22-2004, 11:00
Just crosstrain in both.
Do some boxing and/or muay thai
Do some wrestling and/or submission wrestling
You'd be 10x better off than going to some school were they don't train or compete effectively in both.
this is pretty rock solid advice in my opinion. however, if you were looking for a system which integrates grappling with the standing techniques with common techniques, i can highly recommend kamon wing chun. at the moment it is purely wing chun (standing) but sifu kevin chan is integrating brazilian ju-jitsu techniques (tournaments of which he is dominating after training with the gracie family). i think the result of this integration will be very interesting
www.kamonwingchun.com for more info
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.