What is better greppling or striking arts?

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by sirdarksol

Strongly disagree with you here. Sirdarling is referring to Japanese Ju-Jitsu, not BJJ. The traditional stuff teaches punches and kicks along with grappling attacks.

I do realize that it does incorporate some. Striking, however it is not a striking art. And Traditional Japanese Ju-Jitsu (literally meaning the "art or science of softness",) is a Japanese martial art consisting primarily of grappling techniques.

The term "jūjutsu" was not coined until the 17th century, prior to which time it was referred to by many different names, and afterwards interchangeably, with terms such as "short sword grappling" (小具足腰之周, kogusoku koshi no mawari?), "grappling" (組討 or 組打, kumiuchi?), "body art" (体術, taijutsu?), "softness" (柔 or 和, yawara?), "art of harmony" (和術, wajutsu?), "catching hand" (捕手, torite?), and even the "way of softness" (柔道, jūdō?) (as early as 1724, almost two centuries before Kano Jigoro founded the modern art of judo). -

Japanese jujutsu systems typically place more emphasis on throwing, immobilizing and pinning, joint-locking, choking, and strangling techniques (as compared with other martial arts systems such as karate). Atemi-waza (striking techniques) were seen as less important in most older Japanese systems, since samurai body armor protected against many striking techniques. The Chinese quanfa/ch'uan-fa (kenpo or kung fu) systems focus on punching, striking, and kicking more than jujutsu.

[sirdarling]

Most modern Ju Jitsu styles that you will learn nowadays have adapted this however. The school that I learned from entered into tournaments against tradidtional karate styles and taekwondo. There was plenty of striking training involved. I suppose that a more traditional school would have less.

[sirdarksol]

You also have to remember that JuJitsu was not meant to be used only against armored opponents. Its primary use was off the battlefield, when one might be attacked in one's bedroom, bathroom, etc..., and one might be out of reach of one's sword. Yes, armored opponents are most susceptible to grappling techniques, but JuJitsu taught vicious strikes like knife hands to the throat for the purpose of quickly eliminating, say, would-be assassins who would not be heavily armored.

Perhaps "best of both worlds" was not the greatest choice of words, but JuJitsu is one of the best mixed arts that I have ever come across.

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by sirdarksol

You also have to remember that JuJitsu was not meant to be used only against armored opponents. Its primary use was off the battlefield, when one might be attacked in one's bedroom, bathroom, etc..., and one might be out of reach of one's sword. Yes, armored opponents are most susceptible to grappling techniques, but JuJitsu taught vicious strikes like knife hands to the throat for the purpose of quickly eliminating, say, would-be assassins who would not be heavily armored.

Perhaps "best of both worlds" was not the greatest choice of words, but JuJitsu is one of the best mixed arts that I have ever come across.

We will be stuck at an impasse on this one.... The first form I learned was Japanese JuJitsu, and as a eastern history and philosophy major in University, Ive done my share of study lol.... Jujistu as noted in the last post was called the gentle way for a reason.... traditionally it had little to know striking at all, and was designed to dis way, and manipulate the opponent. Im not denying that modern styles have incorporated many striking movements, and techniques (They have), and it has become a better mixed art, however it will never give you a full grasp of striking. Like I said before I think it is a great art!! however training in jujitsu, and than taking Kung fu, and over the last ten years ninpo, I have seen the drastic (For lack of a better word) differences.

ANYWAY.....LOL... all I was trying to say, was that people should find what works best for them , it really is individual....

[MartialArtGuru]

you should train in Russian Martial Art by Vladimir Vasiliev it gives you the best of both worlds and shows you how to handle the different situations.

[sirdarksol]

Unfortunately, there is no art that gives the best of both worlds (as I said above, I feel that it was not quite the correct choice of words for sirdarling to use). Focus on one aspect takes focus away from the other. The best way to learn both would be to pick an entirely grappling art and an entirely striking art and devote your whole life to learning the two of them.
Other than that, there will always be tradeoffs, which is why, for self defense, I like jujitsu, because it has analyzed those tradeoffs and works with them.

[SteveO]

ok what you learn in the dojo comes down to the insructor if he is experienced enough at every part of his art then thats what you will get but if he is not confident in one or more aspects or even thinks that one is no longer needed then you will not see the complete art you are being taught no matter what they say they are teaching you are you getting the real thing that is why it is good to study the background of the art and the instructor before taking up any MA so could be the same name ju jutsu but taught totally different as its all down to the instructor ...

And as for self defence i would not like a fight to go to the ground unless i was 100% sure that it was one on one or for sure someone would use your head as a football/soccerball i would keep it as stand up as much as possible and if i could not talk my way out then i would try to control the other person with a joint lock they have to get cloes to hit you or grab you i would rather break someones fingers so they cant make a fist than break there jaw and my hand even stamping on someones foot hard can hurt so much and break toes so when you run they cant give chase and thats something they dont expect dont make you look like a god but it will keep you alive..

[eYoon]

it all depends on what kind of fight the real fight is. tight spaces, big open spaces... weapons or no weapons... a guy that wants to kill you or take something from you, or an idiot that just wants to pick a fight with you... also, the clothes ur wearing or any kind of stuff ur carrying... as in, if anything restricts your motion in some way, ur going to have to do something different than if you weren't restrained in some way ex. really tight pants (haha), a skirt (for the ladies), or whatever.

personally, if i got attacked or somebody tried to pick a fight with me and took the first action, i would probably use a striking style as that's what i'm trained in. but also, i find that if you're not a master at grappling, a lot of the movements and techniques become less useful in real situations... if you don't know how to do an armbar and try to, you might have some ugly results and get beat up. if you're not the best striker, you can still punch and kick.

altho i guess i'm being somewhat of a hypocrite because a couple weeks ago some guy tried to pick a fight with me and i put him in an armbar... haha.

[disgruntled]

yeah that was a cool story

if it depends on context, is there a context where you think grappling works best?

[eYoon]

Originally Posted by disgruntled

yeah that was a cool story

if it depends on context, is there a context where you think grappling works best?

certainly not in an urban situation in downtown... as being thrown to the ground itself... just on to the concrete, can end the fight so u might not want to go to ground. also, there might be a lot of foreign objects that could seriously injure you. but perhaps, a quick, no-nonesense, standup grappling style could be beneficial. especially if you're trying to disarm a person with a knife or a gun that's close to you (because if they're far away, that's no use haha).

grappling and groundfighting is also very good for sports fighting like UFC and such.

and umm... situations where ur striking skills might be limited... like being in tight and close spaces, or where you don't want to hurt the person but just control them... like in a barfight with a drunk, or at a party...