A means in and off itself

Folks,

I am writing this post because I was thinking on the fundamental issues that I see when looking at the striking verses the grappling arts. This is not going to be one of those crappy "mine is better than yours" posts. But I have noticed a trend recently. I am not saying that it is new, but it just came to me when I was thinking back on it. I was thinking about how the self defense techniques tend to vary from the striking arts to the grappling ones.

Lets say we are going to practice a defense against a jab and cross combo. A grappler will either shoot in on the legs or use a throw or lock up a limb in a way that controls their opponent. There is the control and then the opportunity strike the opponent as needed. I am not talking about any grappling art in particular. I mean it could be Judo,Kalaripayattu, Sambo, BJJ, Kuresh, Aikido or Dumog.

In the striking arts, often-times, the students act like the defense of the technique is the ultimate goal. There is a standard block or evasion and then a usually two step counter. I find this to be a bit dis-heartening. I think that every technique should include not only the 3 to 4 step response, but the options of more and clearing the area. When I say clearing the area, I mean covering out when appropriate and looking around to make sure that nobody else is going to join the fray uninvited.

I find that grapplers more often than strikers tend to think one step ahead of their opponents. They often use their bodies in such a way as to feel out there opponents so that they can better read their opponent. Since strikers often do NOT use their bodies, but distance as their ally, they tend to read their opponent in an incomplete way.  This is especially true since chain striking is not taught as often as it should be in American Martial Arts.

If I am wrong, school me folks, I am going to celebrate the Alabama victory over Mississippi. ROLL TIDE!