"trapping" vs "clinching"

[Brad Souders]

What are the main differences between these two theories? I'm not very versed in the trapping area and was just wondering what the difference from workin the clinch would be.

Hope we get good discussion.

Later, Brad

[chen zhen]

In my JKD school, we use trapping as a means to get TO the clinch, in theory we use trapping to get past the opponents arms/defence and when his arms are trapped, we transition to clinch, which should then become the end of the fight itself (use elbows, knees, headbutts)

That is just ONE way.

[David Jamieson]

clinching is usually just two guys getting tangled up in each other.

trapping is calculated defenses on incoming attacks. Trapping is not related to clinching.
Clinching just happens, Trappingm you train to do.

cheers

[chen zhen]

Not entirely correct, since Muay Thai & other arts trains specifically for the clinch as an offensive/defensive tactic.
:)

[yenhoi]

clinching is a type or part of trapping range.

this is entirely untrue:

clinching is usually just two guys getting tangled up in each other.

trapping is calculated defenses on incoming attacks. Trapping is not related to clinching.
Clinching just happens, Trappingm you train to do.

cheers.



:eek:

[Crimson Phoenix]

the trapping as contained in the styles I practice consists of establishing a contact with your opponent's arms and seal them in a position where their mobility is reduced or anihilated. For example one common trapping is that is someone assumed a boxing gard in front of you you quickly squeeze their forearms or elbows one against the other, or agains the opponent's body.
Trapping doesn't necessarily involve a grab, but often a simple contact with the palms and a push...it is also often not necessarily a long push but can be a short strong pulse to destabilize your opponent (in any case, trapping is done in my style by pushing the opponents limbs one against the others, or against the body, or any position that reduces mobility and strike opportunities for him). By the time he recovers his structure yourself have an opportunity to strike...it's quite easy to show but hard to describe...

the clinch, as I understand it, on the other hand, is more of a rush to grab your opponent's body, whether the neck or shoulder area and establishing a firm hold close to him to reduce the power of any hand strike. This also enables you to follow with knees or sometimes elbows (in some situations), or wrestling, take downs etc...

[Oso]

I specifically use trapping to allow a flanking footwork maneuver w/o danger of getting hit while flanking. If the trap works, of course.

Trapping is not clinching but clinching can be trapping.

Clinching is NOT 'just two guys getting tangled up'.

[LEGEND]

I think KUNG LEK is joking!

Trapping deals with controlling the arms/legs of an opponent via grabbling or slapping while striking. Reference point is usally the elbow...if u watch hidden tiger/crouching dragon...u see alot of trapping in the h2h combat.

Clinching deals with controlling the arms, neck and upper body...u can see this in wrestling...and muy thai.

[chen zhen]

Each method is used in the proper situation/condition.
:)

[yenhoi]

Use your arms and legs.

:rolleyes:

[Ravenshaw]

In practice, there are quite a few differences (I actually hadn't connected the two before reading this), but I suppose the theories are similar. In trapping, you temporarily immobilize or control an opponent's limb(s) to gain the upper hand. When clinching, the idea is to gain control of the other person's head/neck and from there throw them out of the ring, hit them with a knee strike or whatever technique you want to use. So I suppose in some ways they are similar...

[Mr Punch]

you would not believe the length, clarity and brilliance of the answer i just typed, only to have it lost to the mysteries of the net.

so i'll just have to say: ask your freaking sifu!:D :p

i'll try and get back to it later...:(

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
clinching is usually just two guys getting tangled up in each other.

trapping is calculated defenses on incoming attacks. Trapping is not related to clinching.
Clinching just happens, Trappingm you train to do.

cheers

:rolleyes:

[Volcano Admim]

to me

to trap is to trick, put the fool in a position where he got fooled and is in a bad position. like 1, 2, 3 and his arms are in a crappy position where he can no longer attack you and you got yourself in a position where you can beat him more easily.

so trapping happens in clinching too

the WC guys definition of what trapping should me make me go like: Huh? Like... huh?

huh?

[truewrestler]

Second knee in clinch:
http://mma.bdc.cx/vitor-eastman.jpg

Damage from first knee:
http://www.subfighter.com/albums/album03/Eastman_Cut_From_Vitor.jpg

[Volcano Admim]

what you say?

(they set up us the bomb)


really, what are the pictures supposed to mean?

[apoweyn]

My opinion (and that's all it is): They describe the same range. But trapping tends to describe a focus on the opponent's limbs. Whereas clinching tends to focus on the trunk, head, and neck.

Obviously, those are kinda fuzzy distinctions. Someone trapping an arm is ultimately going to want to elbow the head, for example. Likewise, someone looking to clinch is probably going to have to at least sweep an opponent's arm out of the way first.

But when I think of clinching in, say, boxing or muay thai, the emphasis is on tying the arms to the trunk or controlling the head and neck, respectively. Whereas in, for example, wing chun or kali (arts in which the term 'trapping' is used), there is an emphasis on controlling at the forearm or elbow, or tricep, etc. Before countering to the core of the opponent.

All that said, it's just terminology. I personally wouldn't have a problem with calling trapping 'limb clinching' or clinching 'neck trapping.' Or something.

Regardless, I disagree with Kung Lek's statement (or joke?) that clinching is uncontrolled and incidental.


Stuart B.

[David Jamieson]

There are methods that you can employ when you find yourself in a clinch. There is even training devised around what to do in a clinch.

Most fighters do not try to get into a clinch although there may be a trend towards training for it now. For the most part, a clinch is two guys getting tangled and now they must get out of it, the one who is prepared for it and knows what to do will likely fair better.

Trapping can be used in a clinch, but trapping and the clinch are entirely different. A boxer does not box to find themself in a clinch. A striker does not seek to clinch and it is wrestling that will teach you more about a lockup that is a clinch.


The clinch is used primarily to stop your opponent from attacking you and to get a little rest. The trap is used to setup a break or lock which will end a given situation.

No, I'm not joking.

regards

[truewrestler]

Vanderlei Silva has a good clinch :)

http://216.40.244.4/misc/meca2/meca2_silva_vs_medina.zip

[apoweyn]

No, I'm not joking

Muay thai fighters don't train to go to the clinch? They just find themselves there and then train to make the best of it?

Nah. I don't believe that. Controlling the head and body so that you can deliver knee strikes to the body, legs, and head are very deliberate tactics. Not strikes of happenstance.


Most fighters do not try to get into a clinch although there may be a trend towards training for it now. For the most part, a clinch is two guys getting tangled and now they must get out of it, the one who is prepared for it and knows what to do will likely fair better.

I don't really believe that. I believe it's often a transition stage. Something you use on the way to takedowns. To rest for a moment without absorbing blows. Or to achieve a level of hands-on control for striking.

I do agree that fighters do get tangled up and that good clinchers will be at an advantage in that case. But I think it's wrong to suggest that nobody seeks to clinch on purpose. Resting, wearing an opponent out, setting up for a throw, setting up for knees, etc. All are deliberate.


Trapping can be used in a clinch, but trapping and the clinch are entirely different. A boxer does not box to find themself in a clinch. A striker does not seek to clinch and it is wrestling that will teach you more about a lockup that is a clinch.

Muay thai stylists are strikers that seek to clinch. So how can this statement be true? As for boxers, it's not ideal to clinch perhaps. But it's a common enough tactic to clinch with someone in order to rest or smother the opponent's offense so you can gather your wits. In both cases, the boxer decides to clinch.


The clinch is used primarily to stop your opponent from attacking you and to get a little rest.

In boxing, yes. Precisely. So how does that just happen? You don't tangle up and then decide it's an ideal time to take a rest.


The trap is used to setup a break or lock which will end a given situation.

Every time? Usually, when I've seen a pak sao for example, the trap was used to land a strike. And while, ideally, the strike will take the opponent out, that's hardly a given. Meaning that trapping is not necessarily used to set up a break or lock and will not necessarily end a given situation. (Though, ideally, virtually any move a martial artist performs will end a given situation.)


Stuart B.

[Christopher M]

They're definitely overlapping. IME the difference is people tend to think of clinching as position and trapping as movement. For instance, an arm drag is classic example of trapping and the plumb is a classic example of clinching.

Perhaps more telling would be the comparison between puter kepala as a trapping movement and a head-arm hold as a clinching position.

[Shaolin-Do]

Gotta say Im seein more eye to eye with KL on this one...
Clinch - Can be accidental or on purpose, no one really controls this situation. Both combatants are at an equal standpoint in the clinch, an advantage being gained by knowing how to fight "in the clinch".
Edit: having a slight advantage does not dignify control of "the clinch".
Trapping- Controlling one or more of your opponents limbs to set up for a strike, takedown, ect...

[chen zhen]

One thing I have thought of is, that if u have really gotten into the range where u can clinch, then what have been done before, that could'nt have been handled with a good punch to the nose, kick to the knee, etc? That IS safer & faster to do anyway.
(not thinking of sports, but street-reality)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Clinch - Can be accidental or on purpose, no one really controls this situation. Both combatants are at an equal standpoint in the clinch, an advantage being gained by knowing how to fight "in the clinch".

I dunno... that's like saying "hitting someone in the face can be accidental or on purpose. Both combatants are at an equal standpoint when being hit in the face, an advantage being gained by knowing how to hit someone in the face."

Probably true... but there's a difference between something being true and something being a meaningfull remark.


Originally posted by chen zhen
if u have really gotten into the range where u can clinch, then what have been done before, that could'nt have been handled with a good punch to the nose, kick to the knee, etc? That IS safer & faster to do anyway.

What you've done is established superior position, balance, and structure so that your offensive techniques can be executed a) with maximal effectiveness, and b) with minimal chance of you being effectively attacked in the process.

The first is crucial in "street-reality" where you have far less guarantee of being of comparable size, strength, fitness, and readiness as your aggressor; and the second is similarly crucial due to the absence of cornermen and medics, and the prevalence of weapons, thus making not-getting-hit more of a priority than ever.

[Shaolin-Do]

No its not... Its liek saying you can get too close and "fall" into a clinch, or if one is getting tired, purposely seek the clinch. Any strike is of course, intentional.

[ShaolinTiger00]

kung lek talking about fighting is like a blind man talking about interior design

:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
No its not... Its liek saying you can get too close and "fall" into a clinch, or if one is getting tired, purposely seek the clinch.

How is this different than hitting someone?


Any strike is of course, intentional.

How is this different than clinching?

[chen zhen]

What you've done is established superior position, balance, and structure so that your offensive techniques can be executed a) with maximal effectiveness, and b) with minimal chance of you being effectively attacked in the process.

The first is crucial in "street-reality" where you have far less guarantee of being of comparable size, strength, fitness, and readiness as your aggressor; and the second is similarly crucial due to the absence of cornermen and medits, and the prevalence of weapons, thus making not-getting-hit a priority.

Good to get that opinion. But what I mean is that u *could* have used other methods before, which could be more safe than clinch. Also, using clinch against an opponent wearing a weapon would be committing suicide.

[Oso]

Clinch - Can be accidental or on purpose, no one really controls this situation. Both combatants are at an equal standpoint in the clinch, an advantage being gained by knowing how to fight "in the clinch".

No one really controls a clinch? Sure they do. Whoever is better in the clinch will control what happens next. Just like any other range of fighting.


One thing I have thought of is, that if u have really gotten into the range where u can clinch, then what have been done before, that could'nt have been handled with a good punch to the nose, kick to the knee, etc? That IS safer & faster to do anyway.

someone may have drawn you into the clinch by deflecting/blocking your punch/kick and closed distance to the clinch, drawing you in with the captured limb. Or shucking/passing the limb. As stated before the clinch has a smothering affect on strikes. And, anyone who trains to clinch knows that you are blocking/deflecting on the way in to the clinch. You don't just walk in and try to grab. So, that punch or kick may or may not do you any good, unless you are a better striker than your opponent is a blocker.

[Black Jack]

ShaolinTiger- LOL!

Cut to BlackJack cleaning diet Cherry Coke off his desk. Freebird blaring in the background.

Clinching is a great offensive and defensive tool. If the main aspect of trapping is holding and hitting then the clinch falls into this area very nicely if applied from an aggressive perspective as in Muay Thai.

It's great for elbows, knees, headbutts, uppercuts, short inside strikes, gouges, and of course for offbalancing, throws and takedowns.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
But what I mean is that u *could* have used other methods before, which could be more safe than clinch.

It's like in fencing, you *can* thrust freely at your opponent, and if you're good, you've got a decent chance of hitting him - you've just got no guarantee that you won't get hit as well. Winning a duel is an empty victory when you've got a rapier stuck in your liver.

The extra action of controlling the opponent's sword through opposition seems redundant - if you can do that, you ask, surely you could have just struck him? Yes, you could have - but you're buying yourself insurance; you're using that extra action to guarantee not just that you'll "win" but that you'll "survive" on top of that... could be deemed pretty important in "street-reality."

Gaining superiority in empty-hand conflict follows the same principle.


Also, using clinch against an opponent wearing a weapon would be committing suicide.

Trying to "out-box" someone with a weapon is suicide. If by clinch you mean a skill-less thrusting of your body at your opponents, then yes, that would be suicide too.

But people who train for opponent superiority are surely at least as capable as others of finding skillfull responses to combatative situations.

[Chang Style Novice]

The claim that no-one goes into a clinch deliberately is perhaps the dumbest (non-political) thing I've ever read on this forum.

Ever heard of Judo? Wrestling? Shuai Chiao? Tai Chi?

Sweet merciful Stalin, probably half of all cma happens in steady contact range. Many of the most popular and effective fighting arts specialize in it.

[Shaolin-Do]

How is this different than hitting someone?


How is this different than clinching?

...???
?
What??
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Its different because you are clinching, not hitting someone. Hitting someone intentionally is different than clinching because obviously, you are hitting the person. Its always intentional if thats what you are getting at, whereas clinching is not always intended.

[Chang Style Novice]

A strike isn't neccesarily always intentional - what if I'm going for neck surround, and you step back and instead of grabbing your neck (which would have been an intentional clinch) I clobber you in the ear (an accidental - probably weak - strike)?

What if you walk into a jab that was intended as a feint?

Etc.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by chen zhen
One thing I have thought of is, that if u have really gotten into the range where u can clinch, then what have been done before, that could'nt have been handled with a good punch to the nose, kick to the knee, etc? That IS safer & faster to do anyway.
(not thinking of sports, but street-reality)

1. the person could've slipped your punch or blocked your kick.

2. I can knock you out faster with my knees and elbows than with my fists.

[SevenStar]

3. I have more control over your balance and mobility.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
What?? Its different because you are clinching, not hitting someone.

Please recall that you've been trying to establish how these things differ in the context of this conversation. Indignant shock that someone would mention this alleged difference seems somewhat misplaced.


Its always intentional if thats what you are getting at, whereas clinching is not always intended.

People get accidentally hit and banged in all sorts of ways, inside fights and out of them. Do you disagree? If not, where does this leave your argument?

[Merryprankster]

clinching is usually just two guys getting tangled up in each other.

I'll let your caretakers know that if they put a cork on your fork, you won't hurt yourself when you eat.

[Black Jack]

Is Kung Lek Rupert from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?

[Shaolin-Do]

I dont consider trying to wrap and bumping someones face a hit... its a bump, a weak contact, a fast paced push. Thats like saying "If I stick out my arm, and you walk into my fist, I hit you"
Which is indeed, not the case. I would have "bumped" into your fist. Unless you all hit like girls....
:rolleyes:

"Please recall that you've been trying to establish how these things differ in the context of this conversation"

Ok... So what your saying is that clinching and hitting somone is the same thing?

[Merryprankster]

MAN the reading comprehension around here sucks.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
I dont consider trying to wrap and bumping someones face a hit

But you seem to consider two people bumping into each other in a noncommitted and accidental manner to be a "clinch." Isn't this inconsistent?


Ok... So what your saying is that clinching and hitting somone is the same thing?

Within the context of this conversation, the difference which you are trying to establish, I am saying, doesn't exist.

[Shaolin-Do]

"Please recall that you've been trying to establish how these things differ in the context of this conversation. Indignant shock that someone would mention this alleged difference seems somewhat misplaced"

Im shocked cause I dont know what the hell point you are trying to make.

"People get accidentally hit and banged in all sorts of ways, inside fights and out of them. Do you disagree? If not, where does this leave your argument?"

wtf? People more or less hit themselves, bang themselves on things... As I said, if someone is going for a headlock and bumps your ear on the way... I wouldnt constitute that as a hit. Were talking about the difference between Trapping and clinching btw.... So whatever point you were trying to make about hitting has kinda lost me...

Lets start from the beginning. 1st of all -CLINCH - last range before grounding, 2 people still on their feet, clinch is not always intentional... Trapping is however, intentional, seeks to control one or more limbs for any number of reasons.
A strike is not unintentional... A bump could be, but Im not considering something so feeble as to be a strike, or a hit.

[Black Jack]

Shaolin Do

They are called incedential strikes. The key word there being incedential. Be that a shoulder or hip bump, knee spike, or when the "wrap" aspect of the hold actually has some meat behind it.

An example of incedential- take a choke from behind. Instead of just slipping the rear naked choke onto the attacker whip your wristbone/forearm into the throat of the person as you set into the hold.

Even the little things can be considered strikes.

[Shaolin-Do]

"noncommitted and accidental manner to be a "clinch." "

Yes a clinch can be when 2 people bump into each other AND WRAP. Thats exactly what Im saying.

"walk into a feint"

A feint is a strike is it not? Just wasnt intended for contact.

[Shaolin-Do]

Whatever... so strikes are incidental too.
This is bar none one of the most dumb azz arguments Ive ever participated in....

"Im shocked cause I dont know what the hell point you are trying to make."

Let me re-iterate that point.
Im still not sure what it is im arguing...
In the context of the current thread strikes arent even the topic... so your argument here is completely irrelevant... I dont consider bumps to be strikes but to save any more pointless arguing... Still doesnt make me wrong about trapping and clinching.
:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Im shocked cause I dont know what the hell point you are trying to make.

Please review your post of 08-25-2003 where you seek to establish a difference between clinching and striking. My reply, immediately following, which you claim to have difficulty understanding, simply asks you to explain that difference. I'm not sure how your confusion could have arisen.


if someone is going for a headlock and bumps your ear on the way... I wouldnt constitute that as a hit.

But if someone is "going for a punch" and "grabs you" you would count that as a clinch. This is the inconsistency I mentioned previously.


clinch is not always intentional... Trapping is however, intentional

It certainly is when you beg the question and treat them inconsistently as you have above. If you arbitrarily don't count accidental trapping as trapping, then don't be too proud of a conclusion that all trapping is purposefull.

There's a special word for this way of thinking - fallacy.

[Black Jack]

Sure trapping can be accidential.

You are grappling with a bloke and his jacket gets pulled down on accident and traps his arms from hitting you. You are fighting with a bloke and you accidentaly step on his foot and that trap helps him go down when he gets bumped into on the shove. You fall ontop of a bloke and accidentaly end up with one of your shins on the guys arm thus trapping him from reaching up and grabbing you with that hand.

[Shaolin-Do]

lol... This is going nowhere.
Whatever dude.
"But if someone is "going for a punch" and "grabs you" you would count that as a clinch, according to you. This is the inconsistency "

How so?

"If you arbitrarily don't count accidental trapping as trapping,"

Show me where I mentioned accidental trapping?

Let me specify something - Im talking about moving from fighting position into "the clinch" or into "trapping". You can trap from the clinch, but unless admist the fumbling you realize you have a better strategic position and chance for a throw, ect, the trap is intentional.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
How so?

1. If someone tries to clinch you but hits you, it's not a hit.

2. If someone tries to hit you but clinches you, it is a clinch.

If you don't see the inconsistency here, you're right, this isn't going anywhere.


Show me where I mentioned accidental trapping?

Um... almost in every single post you tried to distinguish trapping by it's intentionality. Most recently in last line of the very post where you ask this question.

[Shaolin-Do]

Whatever. Ill say Im wrong to end this argument. Point made I guess...
...
.....
:confused:

"1. If someone tries to clinch you but hits you, it's not a hit.

2. If someone tries to hit you but clinches you, it is a clinch"

Never said if they try to clinch and hit you its not a hit. Cause they dont hit you to begin with. The bump you. Im considering hit something with considerably more force than a accidental slap to the back of the neck....

EDIT : TRIES TO CLINCH AND BUMPS, ITS NOT A HIT
Tries to clinch and misses, I wont consider it a hit.

[Ray Pina]

Dough ;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Im considering hit something with considerably more force than a accidental slap to the back of the neck....

And the people who train to clinch consider clinching to be something more than the accidental grapping a few of you are treating it to be.

[Shaolin-Do]

I said clinching can be on purpose. I know that MT goes for the clinch so that they can throw knees, and which is a prime example of an intentional clinch.
Also when fighters become tired, and begin to fall together and just hold trying to gain breath for a minute, would be unintentional, unless one of the fighters was seeking a minute to get breath...


:confused:

ANyhow.... Good argument. Im partially right and partially wrong, as are you.
:)
:eek:

[apoweyn]

Also when fighters become tired, and begin to fall together and just hold trying to gain breath for a minute, would be unintentional, unless one of the fighters was seeking a minute to get breath...

I think maybe that's the crux of the argument. Some people (me included) hold that "fighters falling together" aren't clinching. Falling into one another could obviously be unintentional. But the moment one decides to immobilize the other's arms, that's deliberate. There's an objective. And ideally, there's a technique as well. Some people call that clinching.


Stuart B.

[Shaolin-Do]

"decides to immobilize the other's arms"


Would that not be "trapping"?

:eek:

[Christopher M]

Ap - I think the crux of it is ignorance-inspired arrogance.

People tend to be aware of what "skillfullness" entails only in areas in which they have some experience. When they're not aware of what "skillfullness" entails, due to inexperience, everything looks the same.

So we have people equating "skillfullness" with "the way we do things."

This comes up all the time around here...

[Shaolin-Do]

I dunno if that was an attack on me or what, but whatever dude. I already explained my point.
I realize that we were both faulted, but I admitted that I was wrong... "it is ignorance-inspired arrogance."

[apoweyn]

Shaolin-Do,


Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
"decides to immobilize the other's arms"


Would that not be "trapping"?

:eek:

Actually, by my own definition, yes it would. :)

But I was thinking of clinching in boxing, where you're grabbing a hold of the opponent's torso and pinning their arms to it. So while you are controlling the limbs, you're doing so via the trunk.

Still more evidence that the two have a great deal of overlap.



Stuart B.

[Shaolin-Do]

"Still more evidence that the two have a great deal of overlap."

Yessir.
:)

[apoweyn]

Christopher M,


Originally posted by Christopher M
Ap - I think the crux of it is ignorance-inspired arrogance.

People tend to be aware of what "skillfullness" entails only in areas in which they have some experience. When they're not aware of what "skillfullness" entails, due to inexperience, everything looks the same.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's definitely a bias to dismiss skills we don't, ourselves, practice. I can't count the number of times that boxing is dismissed as nothing more than pummeling someone with fists. Or that kickboxing is written off as the result of insufficiently trained traditional arts. Without direct experience, we can't see all the nuances that make an art brilliant. Look at the slip in boxing. To an untrained eye, the boxer is getting tagged left and right. To an experienced fighter, that same boxer is brilliantly avoiding the full brunt of that punch.


So we have people equating "skillfullness" with "the way we do things."

This comes up all the time around here...

Agreed. I'm not convinced that Shaolin-Do is being arrogant. Nor even arguing for the sake of it. I think he's earnestly discussing the question. But I definitely agree with you that this bias exists.


Stuart B.

[Shaolin-Do]

"I'm not convinced that Shaolin-Do is being arrogant. Nor even arguing for the sake of it."

I was actually, for a good while there, arguing trying to figure out what I was arguing about.
:)

[David Jamieson]

ST double zero- love the way you drop it to personal insults. Speaks for itself. Not to mention you don't know me whatsoever.
Your backbenchers are the same.

Anyway, :rolleyes:

If the purpose of a fight was "to clinch" then fighting would be a useless thing now wouldn't it? Next time we are talking about "clinch" vs "trap", let's pick up a dictionary to start with and then we can move into proselytizing about what we think works or doesn't.

In the end, they are two different things and I would work traps and a selection of moves that can be used in the tangle up that is a clinch before i would focus on what shouldn't be happening in a fight.

regards

[yenhoi]

So, following that, things that should not be happening in a fight:

you should NOT seek to control your opponents structure and balance.

you should NOT seek to deny your opponent basic lines and angles of attack.

you should NOT seek to immobilize your opponents tools and weapons.

etc?

The only thing you SHOULD BE doing in a fight is punching, kicking, and sometimes slapping the opponents arms out of the way?

Does this go along with a low fight posture, chi blasts, and the many paths up the martial mountain?

:rolleyes:

[ZIM]

Shaolin-Do wrote:
I dunno if that was an attack on me or what, but whatever dude. Oh, Lordy no. It was an attack on me, of course.

:D :D :D :D :D

[Shaolin-Do]

You will learn to fear my chi blast....
And if that doesnt work, Ill get close enough to use my Death touch...

:rolleyes:

"Oh, Lordy no. It was an attack on me, of course. "

Ahh... Thanks for the clarification :D

[ZIM]

let's pick up a dictionary to start with Clinch:
[n] 1. (in boxing) the act of one boxer holding onto the other to avoid being hit and to rest momentarily
[n] 2. a tight embrace
...

[v] 6. hold in a tight grasp; "The boxer clinched his opponent"; "clench a steering wheel"

Trap:
....
[n] 8. something (often something deceptively attractive) that catches you unawares; "the exam was full of trap questions"; "it was all a snare and delusion"
[v] 9. to hold fast or prevent from moving; "The child was pinned under the fallen tree"
[v] 10. catch in or as if in a trap; "The men trap foxes"
[v] 11. hold or catch as if in a trap; "The gaps between the teeth trap food particles"
[v] 12. place in a confining or embarrassing position; "He was trapped in a difficult situation"

ALSO:
\Clinch\, v. i.
To hold fast; to grasp something firmly; to seize or grasp
one another.


Which clinches it.
:confused:

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
"I'm not convinced that Shaolin-Do is being arrogant. Nor even arguing for the sake of it."

I was actually, for a good while there, arguing trying to figure out what I was arguing about.
:)

You aren't helping. :)

[Shaolin-Do]

But thats the truth! :)
No arrogance afoot. Cant say your wrong when you dont know what your arguing about, and what I was indeed arguing about, was the fact that I was too vague in my previous assertions. And yes, I was wrong a bit as well. :eek:

[apoweyn]

Kung Lek,


Originally posted by Kung Lek
ST double zero- love the way you drop it to personal insults. Speaks for itself. Not to mention you don't know me whatsoever.
Your backbenchers are the same.

What's a backbencher?

And please don't say "it's not rocket science." Thanks.


If the purpose of a fight was "to clinch" then fighting would be a useless thing now wouldn't it? Next time we are talking about "clinch" vs "trap", let's pick up a dictionary to start with and then we can move into proselytizing about what we think works or doesn't.

Who said that clinching was the purpose of the fight? It doesn't have to be the purpose of the fight for it to be a deliberate and organized tactic. The purpose of a fight isn't to trap either, is it.


In the end, they are two different things and I would work traps and a selection of moves that can be used in the tangle up that is a clinch before i would focus on what shouldn't be happening in a fight.

I still don't see how they're two different things. But then you and I not agreeing isn't exactly new territory. So there you have it.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
But thats the truth! :)
No arrogance afoot. Cant say your wrong when you dont know what your arguing about, and what I was indeed arguing about, was the fact that I was too vague in my previous assertions. And yes, I was wrong a bit as well. :eek:

Just pulling your leg, SD. It's big of you to fess up when you think you've messed up.

:)

[red5angel]

would you guys consider trapping or clinching transitional?

[Shaolin-Do]

"The truly wise man knows what he knows, but he also knows what he does not know"

:D

[Shaolin-Do]

"would you guys consider trapping or clinching transitional?"

Thats what I was thinking of when I first started posting on this thread...

[red5angel]

I haven't read through the entire thread yet so I don't know if it was brought up yet or not. With all the grappling training I am doing though it has been on my mind a bit...

[yenhoi]

Red5: sure I guess, since by clinching, and trapping, your not actually dealing punishment, but moving to a throw or strike or lock.

;)

[ZIM]

since by clinching, and trapping, your not actually dealing punishment, but moving to a throw or strike or lock. This sounds god-awful familiar.... some Euro wrestling tradition did this, maybe that Icelandic jazz.... Anybody know what I'm on about..? ;)

Edit: which is kinda funny, considering that KL was saying a fight is not about a clinch...

[Volcano Admim]

one see, my opinion still remains the ultimate on this thread

all you doing is lame arguments

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by apoweyn
I'm not convinced that Shaolin-Do is being arrogant. Nor even arguing for the sake of it. I think he's earnestly discussing the question.

Right. I meant those words literally, rather than colloquially; that people are following conditioned patterns of thought based upon [in]experience (ignorance) resulting in a false distinction between their practice and that of others (arrogance), rather than implying they are acting under any sort of malevolence.

Except for Zim. He's pure evil.

[Black Jack]

Ap-

By backbencher he means me as I found ShaolinTigers one linear to be pretty funny.

For a laugh Ap go back a few days and find a post called The Mystery or search under my name.

I wonder if you have seen it.:D

[ZIM]

Right, so anyway.

Glima and Cornish-Breton wrestling. That's what it was- they both start from the clinch, in a sense. Also: Sumo, if you're all anti-Western and stuff. ;)

one pic- glima (http://www.vikingnet.dk/wunjo/Wunjobilleder/tidligere/glima2.jpg)

article- glima (http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2000/jwmaart_kautz_0100.htm)

Article- cornish/breton wrestling (http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20cornish%20wrestling.htm)

I'm only 99.9% pure. :)

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by red5angel
would you guys consider trapping or clinching transitional?

I'd consider both transitional, since neither really settles a confrontation in and of itself.

[apoweyn]

Christopher M,


Originally posted by Christopher M

Right. I meant those words literally, rather than colloquially; that people are following conditioned patterns of thought based upon [in]experience (ignorance) resulting in a false distinction between their practice and that of others (arrogance), rather than implying they are acting under any sort of malevolence.

Absolutely. It's something we all need to be careful about if we're serious about a discussion forum. A discussion can't really go very far if we're all genuinely (albeit unconsciously) given to shortchange the other's viewpoint.


Except for Zim. He's pure evil.

I'll take your word for that. :)


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Ap-

By backbencher he means me as I found ShaolinTigers one linear to be pretty funny.

For a laugh Ap go back a few days and find a post called The Mystery or search under my name.

I wonder if you have seen it.:D

Oh, I've seen it. :)

Thankfully, I can still type. Even with the ball gag.


Stuart B.

[Merryprankster]

****! I'll have to tie it tighter!

[apoweyn]

*Mwlphh..*

[Brad Souders]

Holy **** i should start threads and leave all the time good stuff here.

Clinch and trap are as much related as a brother is to his twin brother. Almost the same except for a slight DNA difference.

I use both and think both theories work off each other.

I'm not saying your going to pull of picture perfect traps during heat of the moment action, but in close when working for your takedown or to disengage to strike again u may be able to "trap" a limb out of the way to pursue the next thought. When i clinch high i like to set my hips in tight almost spliting the opponent's thighs with my closest thigh. I do the same thing when i trap and use a straight blast to pursue an opponent to not allow them plant and return fire.

I also use alot of traps to set myself into a clinch. *My trapping terms are not very good* but i use alot of inside pulling parries and lop so to set my clinchs. These can either set me up with a better takedown or help set up a slip to the back.

Why use a gun if the clip is laying on the floor?

Laterm Brad

[Buby]

I've been taught that you trap to destroy your opponents center and put him/her in a position where they can't use their arms or legs. In the system I train we are taught to not only trap the arm, but also the legs. We are taught to trap using both the yin and the yang (Hard and Soft) theories. In other words, we could parry the hand to set up the next move or we can smash the hand and take it from there (depending on the out come we are looking for). Also, there is a lot going on internally when certain traps are done which weaken the limbs and at times the body (they effect the blood flow in the body). We are taught to never look for a trap, it just happens (this comes from sensitivity training).

Now the clich in Thai, also weakens the opponent by appling pressure on the side of the neck which cuts the blood flow to the brain. That's why in Thai you are taught to sqeeze the elbows in once you have the clich or to apply pressure on the side of the neck. The clinch just like trapping is also used to off balance your opponent so you can get your knees in there or just simply throw the fncker, thats the reason for the tug (where ever the head goes the body will follow).

The way I see it, is that both the clinch and trapping are pretty much used for the same purpose and thats to offset your oppponents center while putting yourself in a good position to strike. The only difference I see is that the clinch is worked in while the trap just happens.

Take care,
Buby