Anti-Grappling

[hEmPY]

jubaji u stoopid ass

anti-graplin as philosophy exists. it is to get any technique possible to get to stand up fight again.

uke makes a point, when u just earnin post count u lil fag

suck it boy

LOL

[darrianation]

I think counter-grappling has three working parts.

1. Keeping your feet in the first place.

2. Controlling the clinch range while being able to strike and, or, access weapons in the retention range. You will be surprised how many folks don't know what to do in a clinch when they find their normal punching won't work.

3. Get up off the ground if you have fallen or been taken down.

We can add a fourth also, like in #2 you need a method of staying in the fight until you can access a weapon even on the ground with the BG on top of you. And safely utilizing that weapon without hurting yourself in the melee.

[jubaji]

jubaji u stoopid ass:

..............

anti-graplin as philosophy exists.:

Wrong. Anti-grappling as a marketing ploy exists.

it is to get any technique possible to get to stand up fight again.:

It is a technique to take money from suckers like you by teaching half-assed grappling under a catchy title.

[EmptyneSs]

So, I have to be afraid to be gay in order to see the guard for what it is? You can try to justify rubbing your manhood up against another man's tubing, but its not for me. If that makes me gay then oh well. And if it makes you more studly to let another man rub his balls on you, then you go ahead. Make it a homophobic issue. Suit yourself. If someone puts you in a triangle choke, and their nutsack in your face doesn't bother you, then bravo. Go on with ya bad self.

thanks for totally proving my point about how your so totally one of those guys who is afriad of grappling with other men because of how erotic and stimulating you might find it.

[jubaji]

thanks for totally proving my point about how your so totally one of those guys who is afriad of grappling with other men because of how erotic and stimulating you might find it.

pUke and Bo0radly are probably headed to Massachusetts to get married right now!

[bigred389]

Boar – of course it is always better to have some type of weapon (better still if you know how to use it, but there is a reason why people train empty hand from Asia to here in the US and I know that you know why. I carry a knife with me, but I also live in NYC if I was stopped for any reason, that knife lands me a night in jail, much less carrying a gun. most empty hand styles also teach weapons, wait I should take that back as most people don't feel weapons training is import to understand their style (please note complete sarcasm)

Dude, I also live in NYC. You can legally carry a knife. Check the local knife laws.

The self-defense laws, and use of lethal force/weapons is what you should be more worried about.

[IPON]

Dude, I also live in NYC. You can legally carry a knife. Check the local knife laws.

The self-defense laws, and use of lethal force/weapons is what you should be more worried about.

Hey Big Red - I looked just to confirm my understanding, but for all practical purposes, weapons are completely forbidden in New York City. I listed the statutes below. Now how well its enforced I guess may depend on where you live in the city. But this has been on the books for some time, actually before I was born. If I am wrong let me know where I can find the correct information since NY’s finest also has the same understanding understanding of the law.



§ 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:
(1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metalknuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto, imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another

Note: using circular reasoning, subsequent law PL 265.15(4) dictates that simple possession constitutes presumptive evidence that the possessor intends to use the instrument unlawfully against another. see below:

§ 265.15
3. The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public
omnibus, of any firearm, large capacity ammunition feeding device, defaced firearm, defaced rifle or shotgun, defaced large capacity ammunition feeding device, firearm silencer, explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sandbag, sandclub or slungshot is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found, except under the following circumstances: (a) if such weapon, instrument
or appliance is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein;
(b) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found in an automobile which is being operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his or her trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver; or (c) if the weapon so found is a pistol or revolver and one of the occupants, not present under duress, has in his or her possession a valid license to have and carry concealed the same.
4. The possession by any person of the substance as specified in section 265.04 is presumptive evidence of possessing such substance with intent to use the same unlawfully against the person or property of another if such person is not licensed or otherwise authorized to possess such substance. The possession by any person of any dagger, dirk, stiletto, dangerous knife or any other weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.

[bigred389]

http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/ny.txt

http://www.knifeforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB62&Number=192015&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Here's a pretty good discussion on the topic. I also confirmed by stopping in at the local NYPD precint.

And besides...you DON'T get random searched in NYC(unless you're carrying it in your backpack-in which case it's not really serving a SD purpose) and you won't "get caught" unless you do something dumb like bring it into a school w/metal detectors or a federal building.
Also, notice the part about it being specifically meant to be a weapon...so no fixed blades, get a tactical/utility folder less than 4" in blade length.

Honestly, the big issue based on the cases I've looked up is how you use lethal force. If you used a knife when you weren't justified that's when you'll really pay for it in court...ILLEGAL possession is merely a misdemeanor, assault/manslaughter/murder is a bit of a step up from that.

[hEmPY]

Wrong. Anti-grappling as a marketing ploy exists.





It is a technique to take money from suckers like you by teaching half-assed grappling under a catchy title.

LOL

dumb fukk

ya know BJJ is anti-grapple too. the theory doesn stops at bjj though.
btw the theory is free. u dont have to pay for the theory a buck

so shut the fukk up

LOL

[EmptyneSs]

this thread doesnt even have anything to do with anitgrappling. its about uke being afriad he might be gay

[jubaji]

ya know BJJ is anti-grapple too. :

No, its not. There is no such thing. There is just grappling.

[jubaji]

this thread doesnt even have anything to do with anitgrappling. its about uke being afriad he might be gay

Oh that question has been solved already. He's so far out of the closet now that the door has closed behind him (and Bo0radly and hOmoplata)

[J-Luck]

I had meant to do this months ago, but being that I don't frequent this site as much it had escaped my mind. I mentioned this months ago, and I believe it was jubaji who said that it didn't exist. Yet another telling testament to his knowledge and experience.

IMO, anti-grappling is the true, practical evolution of what the UFC has brought us. The UFC served to show all martial artists that there was a tremendous hole in the striking/stand up game. That is the legacy of the Gracie family and the true message that events like the UFC send.

As many of the topics here have indicated, MMA is and has never been more than a sporting event. But, what some SDA(Self Defense Artist) have had to consider because of the popularity and spread of MMA/BJJ is that there is a very good chance that you'd encounter a guy that may shoot in on you, and possibly even take you down. When you watch MMA/BJJ, there's a kamikaze quality to the way they rush in with disregard. No one trained even half way decently would ever attempt to shoot in unless he was absolutely certain that there could be no way any lethal force would be used. And unless its you fighting your brother or best friend, you can't know that. Ever.

And its for that specific reason why the standup/striking arts neglected to train for ground jujitsu. Everyone was in agreement that no thinking man would rush into a fight head first, taking blow after blow just to get a clinch. Few believed that anyone would be that foolish. And it still stands true today. No one is going to do the bullrush/shoot-in during a real fight that can produce weapons, unless they're fighting with bravado instead of intelligence. All those ineffective punches that land during a bullrush/shoot-in attempt would be a world of difference if those were knife thrusts instead. Everyone just assumed that no one would fight like that because the reality of weapons is just too prominent to be overlooked. So, the SD community's ground game withered and became overlooked because no one with sense would charge head on into a knife or brass knuckles. But still, there are those who have traded in common sense for blind loyalty and will still attempt to run forward kamikaze-style looking for a clinch. For that purpose, stand-up arts have been devising anti-grappling for many years.

In an effort to be well rounded AND practical, SDA's have included ground fighting, but only recently put the emphasis on preventing a ground bout, and defending fast in order to return to the feet. Anti-grappling has been adopted by several styles in an effort to stay practical yet prepared. It was first brought to my attention by the Wing Tsun community, but has since been developed by others. Being prepared was the attitude of every competent SD system, but previously many just never put the necessary emphasis on preventing the ground grappling situation.

Most schools just incorporated BJJ to teach students how to deal with BJJ the way BJJ players would have you do so. There's nothing innovative about that. And it teaches students to fight within the confines of BJJ on the ground. And that's ridiculous. If you watch 2 BJJ players grapple, it can take time and can be stalled. You don't have the luxury of time in a situation where someone is trying to kill/mug/rape you, and anyone with just a little sense knows that. While the Gracie family boasts of matches that have exceeded 3 hours, I'd reply "Why"? A fight is nothing more than a struggle as to who will bring about its conclusion fastest. So grappling for 3 hours and calling it a fight is pretty unreasonable.

"Anti-grappling" or more appropriately "antiground-grappling" fits in perfectly. It negates ground grappling attempts and gives a man room to strike and return to his feet. Grappling on the ground defeating those who used strikes was the validation of the UFC and events like it. The Gracies themselves have said from DAY 1 that BJJ was not meant to replace, but to compliment. The true compliment of newaza is learning how not to fall victim to it. Anti-grappling also includes methods of delivering effective strikes and kicks once you and your opponent are on the ground. Pretending that a fight cannot go to the ground is unrealistic, so they prepare for that with strikes as well.

Anti grappling is not just one system's way of negating ground grappling. It is a principle that teaches any SDA that staying on the ground in a potentially lethal altercation is a sure way to increase your chances of dying. Anti grappling methods increase your odds of survival by providing space and opportunity to regain your footing while still defending.

The true legacy of the Gracies was stated long ago by Rorion during the early UFC's. He said that their family opened the eyes of the world to the need for a comprehensive way to defend against Gracie Jujitsu. That is true. He also stated that the only way to defeat GJJ was with GJJ, which we've all seen to be untrue. Once people began understanding the mechanics of BJJ, BJJ players began losing with more frequency. The big advantage that BJJ held for so many years was that few had seen it, and even less had practiced it. Now that BJJ is widely practiced, it was just a matter of time before people began devising a way to counter it without having to roll along the ground.

To learn more about it, just google "anti grappling" and see just a few of the many systems that have adopted this principle.

1. Lol, this post is funny. Kamikaze style... like there is no technique behind takedowns... lol.

2. No one charges as you put it. A shoot can and should be extremly technical, and so should a throw from the clinch. A double leg, when picked up over the should and slammed... will end the fight. Period. Broken spinal column, ribs, arm, leg... internal bleeding, you name it, chances are, they'll have it. You can get knocked out in the UFC with a big takedown/slam... so how much more so devestating do you think pavement,tileflooring, hardwood flooring, concrete, and even grass(hard ground underneath). People fall and break an arm... imagine slamming them from your full height, or at akward angles without breakfalls and protection.

3. I never doubt weapons are a factor. I've seen them used, used them, have had them used on me. That being said. I've seen far more, FAR more unarmed confrontations than armed ones. I'd like to see the statistics as far as assulat and battery, and assualt with a deadly weapon nationally and statewide to see if we can't figure out exactly how often they happen in relation to one another. If someone could find that it would be helpfull... I'll look it up in the future on the FBI statistics.

4. I can see why this would be useful. That being said, ground grappling is essential, beacause, plenty(if not most) altercations do not have weapons involved. I'd rather break their arm quickly and get up than waste time trying to negate a whole grappling style, then get up. ESPECIALLY IF HE HAS FRIENDS WITH HIM... this is of course assuming the fight does go to the ground. Even if there is a weapon, all the disarming techniques I've seen with an unarmed person involve writstlocks, arm locks, and such, which is grappling.

[J-Luck]

Better yet a gun. It is not just anti-grappling but anti-striking and anti-stick/knife fighting.

This makes more sense than any of the other posts I've seen here so far.

[J-Luck]

A blade works well. So does empty hand methods. Even a simple sprawl works. The point is that anti-grappling is a growing movement because people are seeing the folly of grappling with a grappler in a situation where your life is on the line.

People are waking up and seeing that laying on your back is not the place to be in a fight. People are realizing that you can put the other man on the ground, kick his groin and then stomp his jaw, and then restrain him or even cripple him so that can't give chase. And that wouldn't be classified as ground fighting just because your victim is laid out while you work on him.

But if it isn't empty hand, a blade, a brick, a metal pipe ... anything can end a charge/shoot-in. And with today's population carrying weapons like folders, it would be foolish to try.

True, but a knife would stop a striker also... so it's irrelevant.

Open handed... naaa, no way to stop it unless your training is superior as a striker than your opponent as a grappler. Remeber, as I said before, a properly executed slam or takedown easily ends the fight.

A simplistic sprawl... come on, you know better than that? That's why you need to learn to grapple to counter grappling. Or at least that's what you're advocating. Who's going to be able to best counter that "simplistic sprawl"? Wanna take a wild guess?

I think you're defnitly right about being on your back in a street fight. Been there, and on pavement too... it's not fun... at all. My back and ribs have been bruised and cut everytime it's happened... Not cool. It's good to know sweeps and other ways of getting off your back because the situation MAY ARRISE. But yes, getting off your back is a good idea... rather, but the other guy on his.