Tweet
I know that one should know how to fight and defend themselves in all ranges, but what does everyone think is the most crucial range of any fight. Stand up, clinch, or ground?
-
-
depends on who you are and how you like to fight.
Me? I think a good foundation in groundfighting is a great place to start. why? the standard answer: lots of fights go to the ground, may as well be good there. I also have another answer: most everyone can be grabbed and clinched..from clinch to ground, ground to submit.
there are lots of arguments to this view. such as "you can't go to the ground against multiple attackers". well. Yes, this is true. But that's no reason not to learn to excell there. and in truth, you CAN go to the ground with multiple attackers, but you may not stay there long..you may take a guy down in a manner that protects you from his friends (based on situation), break his arm rather quickly, and move to the next.. I think the gracie's have a tape on this.
secondly, I think throwing/takedowns, and then thirdly, boxing (hands) skills.
I think a person can avoid learning all the punches if they are good at groundfighting, and secondly throwing. just learn to dodge and enter..and jab. Learn to jab like a strong mutha..
so. in short
1: ground skills
2: throwing/takedowns
3: dodging strikes
4: boxing attacks
that's me. then again, I'm a jkd guy with some pretty standard jkd fighter views.. minimize skills, maximize application, train what's necessary for 95 percent of your possible confrontations..leave nothing up to jesus..
..
heh. I think that just became my new signature..
[Edited by quietanswer on 12-08-2000 at 02:12 PM]
I personally think that training progression should actually go in the opposite direction. Here's why. Starting out in boxing will teach a person how to hit as hard as they possibly can and how to deal with punches. Sure, most fights will go to the ground, but they almost all start standing up. Besides, the most instincual things that untrained fighters do are haymakers and tackles. Therefore, teach someone to punch properly, deal with punches, handle themselves in the clinch (where most of the "action" took place in the fights I have seen and the one fight that I have been in), and then teach them takedowns and groundfighting.
Comment
I understand your reasoning...but then, I don't tend to think a person needs to know how to punch well to handle a haymaker.
I know lots of guys (especially small guys, like me) who would not do well in a fight against a large, muscular type, if all he had was boxing skills..even very, very good boxing skills.
And while all fights may START standing, (a good point, by the way), I'm not too interested in how it starts compared to how it ends.. he can start out punching all he wants, so long as I dodge the punch, throw him severely hard to the ground (using his superior punching skills to put him into the throw and on the ground) and then break his fragging arm off (though it may be beefier than mine)..
Dunno. I'm just not much of a striker. Keep in mind, most of my background is in the standing arts.. striking with hands (western boxing) mostly. I just know how a fight goes with a wrestler. People tellme all the time "you can outbox wrestlers" but i have yet to see anyone even come close to doing this..unless the wrestler was piss poor to start with.. Hell, men even get inside the dog brother's sticks and take things to the ground..and those guys are good in both areas, as a rule..better than good..
dunno, that's just my views, though..
I know lots of guys (especially small guys, like me) who would not do well in a fight against a large, muscular type, if all he had was boxing skills..even very, very good boxing skills.
And while all fights may START standing, (a good point, by the way), I'm not too interested in how it starts compared to how it ends.. he can start out punching all he wants, so long as I dodge the punch, throw him severely hard to the ground (using his superior punching skills to put him into the throw and on the ground) and then break his fragging arm off (though it may be beefier than mine)..
Dunno. I'm just not much of a striker. Keep in mind, most of my background is in the standing arts.. striking with hands (western boxing) mostly. I just know how a fight goes with a wrestler. People tellme all the time "you can outbox wrestlers" but i have yet to see anyone even come close to doing this..unless the wrestler was piss poor to start with.. Hell, men even get inside the dog brother's sticks and take things to the ground..and those guys are good in both areas, as a rule..better than good..
dunno, that's just my views, though..
Comment
Originally posted by quietanswer
I understand your reasoning...but then, I don't tend to think a person needs to know how to punch well to handle a haymaker.
I understand your reasoning...but then, I don't tend to think a person needs to know how to punch well to handle a haymaker.
Comment
Well it takes good striking skills to be a complete fighter. And it takes good grappling skills to be a good fighter. IMO, not my favorite, but if you can understand the clinch very well, you can choose to go down to the ground in an advantageous position or open the range to striking with an advantage. Of course, if you haven't trained the two, or don't have natural attributes of the striking or grappling, then with superior clinching skills, you can try to stay in that range if that is what you train.
Comment
There is so much to train, sometimes I think there aren't enough hours in the day, or days in the week.
Comment
I think the clinch is ultra important because it's the range that will dictate if the fight goes to ground or not. Fights don't go from stand up straight to grappling unless one guys falls and the other guy jumps on him. Being good in the clinch will allow you to control the range the fight takes place. After that I think boxing skills are primary. Grappling is good but one KO punch is more efficient than a clinch,takedown,gaining a base, then submitting, in my opinion. But some people don't have the eye to hand coordination (or some other attribute) to be good boxers.
One of the guys I train with is a good example, he's just too slow to be a great boxer so he likes to take it to the ground. Our fights usually go something like this. Starts out at long range then I carefully close the distance and try to create openings to strike while he looks for the opportunity to shoot in on me. It doesn't take long till we start to clinch, him trying to take me down and me sprawling and throwing uppercuts like mad. Usually he gets me to the ground, but hey, who said you can't strike on the ground? Once on the ground I'll either throw elbows from the gaurd or reverse position to get on top and then either throw punches from the mount or get back to my feet.
So I guess it depends on the person (as always). But in my opinion the clinch is the range that decides where the fight will go. I think maybe more important than excelling in one area is the ability to control the range, and be functional in each one. Your primary skill set will be decided by your own style and physical attributes.
One of the guys I train with is a good example, he's just too slow to be a great boxer so he likes to take it to the ground. Our fights usually go something like this. Starts out at long range then I carefully close the distance and try to create openings to strike while he looks for the opportunity to shoot in on me. It doesn't take long till we start to clinch, him trying to take me down and me sprawling and throwing uppercuts like mad. Usually he gets me to the ground, but hey, who said you can't strike on the ground? Once on the ground I'll either throw elbows from the gaurd or reverse position to get on top and then either throw punches from the mount or get back to my feet.
So I guess it depends on the person (as always). But in my opinion the clinch is the range that decides where the fight will go. I think maybe more important than excelling in one area is the ability to control the range, and be functional in each one. Your primary skill set will be decided by your own style and physical attributes.
Comment
Evil, I have to agree with you. The clinch is probably the most important area to train. Of the fights I have been in (only about two) and the several I have witnessed, most of them were fought almost extensively in the clinch range. Now there was a lot of ground work too, but mainly it was attached hitting in the clinch range. Looked like almost every fight that you see in hockey or in football. A lot of grabbing for control and hitting.
Comment
ttt.
Comment
You guys all have good reasoning behind what you're saying, but let me pose the question another way...
"What area is most important for a basketball player to practice: dribbling, passing, shooting, or free throws?" All elements are an equal and necessary part of the game, and neglect in any one area can (and will) get exploited. Harley has some great rules when it comes to this stuff, and I'm sure he'd expound on them if someone asked (He is always they, and they are always armed...)but what it really amounts to is that fights are unprdictable as hell, and a simple scuffle can turn life-or-death in a hurry if you aren't prepared for the possibilities. Ask yourself "How would I counter a grappler?" You might answer, "I'd bring a friend to gut-stomp him if he tackled me." or maybe "I'd jerk my knife out of my pocket and commence to wrapping him up in his own intestines." Or maybe you'd just try to put your stand up game to work and control the distance, but in any case, you can probably think or a dozen viable and effective ways to beat any range, any tool, or any strategy out there. That should tell you that every structure has its inherent weaknesses, and the correct answer to your question is that every area must be given appropriate and realistic attention. Paul Vunak has one of the best ways ever to train this, and if you can't go train with him, I'd really recommend his Attributes 3 and 4 tapes. While the production quality may be a little less than par for Voo, the information is golden. Hope this has been taken in perspective, and I should say that everyone will have different priorities. Personally, mine are to be as all around effective as I can, and it's done well by me so far.
Mike
PS: Our local Police Department confirms that multiple attacker situations and attacks with weapons have increased by as much as 40% in the last year. Take that for what it's worth, but I don't want to be grappling in either of those situations...
"What area is most important for a basketball player to practice: dribbling, passing, shooting, or free throws?" All elements are an equal and necessary part of the game, and neglect in any one area can (and will) get exploited. Harley has some great rules when it comes to this stuff, and I'm sure he'd expound on them if someone asked (He is always they, and they are always armed...)but what it really amounts to is that fights are unprdictable as hell, and a simple scuffle can turn life-or-death in a hurry if you aren't prepared for the possibilities. Ask yourself "How would I counter a grappler?" You might answer, "I'd bring a friend to gut-stomp him if he tackled me." or maybe "I'd jerk my knife out of my pocket and commence to wrapping him up in his own intestines." Or maybe you'd just try to put your stand up game to work and control the distance, but in any case, you can probably think or a dozen viable and effective ways to beat any range, any tool, or any strategy out there. That should tell you that every structure has its inherent weaknesses, and the correct answer to your question is that every area must be given appropriate and realistic attention. Paul Vunak has one of the best ways ever to train this, and if you can't go train with him, I'd really recommend his Attributes 3 and 4 tapes. While the production quality may be a little less than par for Voo, the information is golden. Hope this has been taken in perspective, and I should say that everyone will have different priorities. Personally, mine are to be as all around effective as I can, and it's done well by me so far.
Mike
PS: Our local Police Department confirms that multiple attacker situations and attacks with weapons have increased by as much as 40% in the last year. Take that for what it's worth, but I don't want to be grappling in either of those situations...
Comment
couldn't have said it better myself.
harley
harley
Comment
evilution: Interestingly enough, I saw ufc 16(ithink?) last night.
Now, before I say this, I want to make it clear I do not think the ufc is the end-all-be-all for checking my fight theories.
But I saw the Randy Coutre versus..uh..Vitor Belfort fight.. to sum up (if you haven't seen this one yet) vitor was believed to be an excellent boxer, trained with Leon Sphinx(vitor does vale tudo and I believe some thai boxing as well. He's large, muscular and agile.
Coutre was a greco roman national champ of several clubs, has his own wrestling school and a few other accolades. He too is big and agile..
Coutre dominated. Why? Partially because he was just as good as vitor on the ground (better actually, as he beat the hell out of vitor while being held in his guard)..But mainly because he was great at attached hitting in the clinch. The punches were sloppy and ugly, but his scored because he dominated in the clinch range with his greco skills; while vitor had a hard time scoring..even with his superior boxing skills. and vitor had much cleaner boxing, not just slightly cleaner.
An interesting thing to see, after you and hungrywolf made your points.
[Edited by quietanswer on 12-20-2000 at 09:13 AM]
Now, before I say this, I want to make it clear I do not think the ufc is the end-all-be-all for checking my fight theories.
But I saw the Randy Coutre versus..uh..Vitor Belfort fight.. to sum up (if you haven't seen this one yet) vitor was believed to be an excellent boxer, trained with Leon Sphinx(vitor does vale tudo and I believe some thai boxing as well. He's large, muscular and agile.
Coutre was a greco roman national champ of several clubs, has his own wrestling school and a few other accolades. He too is big and agile..
Coutre dominated. Why? Partially because he was just as good as vitor on the ground (better actually, as he beat the hell out of vitor while being held in his guard)..But mainly because he was great at attached hitting in the clinch. The punches were sloppy and ugly, but his scored because he dominated in the clinch range with his greco skills; while vitor had a hard time scoring..even with his superior boxing skills. and vitor had much cleaner boxing, not just slightly cleaner.
An interesting thing to see, after you and hungrywolf made your points.
[Edited by quietanswer on 12-20-2000 at 09:13 AM]
Comment
A good reference quiet. It just goes to show you that you have to be well versed in boxing, the clinch, and in the ground game in order to handle anything that can possibly happen to you. Maybe I should have sarted this thread with "What area of training should you start at," instead of "What area of training is the most important to train." I still stand by my belief that one should start training in boxing first just because of all the skills and attributes it gives someone (let's not forget that even boxers train in the clinch some. Even though the boxing clinch may not be better than the Greco or Thai clinch). Also, remember that most of us are training how to handle ourselves in a street situation against an untrained opponent, and not against an accomplished NHB fighter. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Comment
I generally say "groundfighting" is where someone should start, but I didn't start there. I started with boxing. If you want to go back far enough, you could say I started with tae kwon do, but I consider that a misinforming beginning that only showed use much much later.
The clinch is probably my least capable game.. I have very little experience there other than high school wrestling and what I train with my partner. all of that will change with the arrival of my functional jkd videos (matt thornton's).
i think the ufc is a good reference, but it has it's flaws too. especially the later volumes, with more rules..
all that aside, I'm curious, again, why you guys who support boxing as the first game do so? my friends who are skilled wrestlers can get inside on any boxer, far as I can see. They may (and that's a maybe) take some punches, but generally, not too many before they get inside and start punishing..they are great at attached hitting because they are sensitive to the energy in the clinch, and how to tie off arms and fight for grip..
maybe I take my early boxing training for granted. it just seems to me (and maybe it's a size thing, i'm not big) that being able to get inside and control a man's weight/balance/submit him is more important.
I think it's well and good to try for a knock out punch in a fight, but it sounds to me like pressure point fighting, to some extent.. a good idea, but nothing to count on as your sole means of fight ending..
so can you guys shed any more light on why some of you think striking is so important?
[Edited by quietanswer on 12-20-2000 at 11:06 AM]
The clinch is probably my least capable game.. I have very little experience there other than high school wrestling and what I train with my partner. all of that will change with the arrival of my functional jkd videos (matt thornton's).
i think the ufc is a good reference, but it has it's flaws too. especially the later volumes, with more rules..
all that aside, I'm curious, again, why you guys who support boxing as the first game do so? my friends who are skilled wrestlers can get inside on any boxer, far as I can see. They may (and that's a maybe) take some punches, but generally, not too many before they get inside and start punishing..they are great at attached hitting because they are sensitive to the energy in the clinch, and how to tie off arms and fight for grip..
maybe I take my early boxing training for granted. it just seems to me (and maybe it's a size thing, i'm not big) that being able to get inside and control a man's weight/balance/submit him is more important.
I think it's well and good to try for a knock out punch in a fight, but it sounds to me like pressure point fighting, to some extent.. a good idea, but nothing to count on as your sole means of fight ending..
so can you guys shed any more light on why some of you think striking is so important?
[Edited by quietanswer on 12-20-2000 at 11:06 AM]
Comment