Wrestling

[ShaolinDan]

Funny to watch this thread go round and round in circles.

Having a 'ground game' and having a 'ground grappling game' aren't quite the same.

Having a 'ground grappling game' and having a 'highly sophisticated ground grappling game' aren't quite the same.

Those who think KF has no ground fighting are simply wrong.
Those who think KF has ground fighting on the level of BJJ are simply wrong.

This thread is full of almost, but not quite, true information. Hilarious.

Kung fu vs. MMA Waltz, round and round we go. Very romantic.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think you may be confused Dan, its not whether TCMA has a ground game of ANY kind, every MA has that.
Its whether it has an effective ground game, or a ground game that can be viewed as comparbale to those that HAVE BEEN PROVEN effective.
It does NOT.
See, outside of GnP, the only ground game there is is grappling.
TCMA does not have that.

It doesn't matter HOW MUCH someone wants TCMA to have a ground game, the fact is, they don't have it.
By the way, dropping to the floor and kicking and punching from the floor and rolling around on the floor does NOT constitute a "ground game".

[Dragonzbane76]

By the way, dropping to the floor and kicking and punching from the floor and rolling around on the floor does NOT constitute a "ground game".

this.....

[ShaolinDan]

Right. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Right. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Hey, no problem, that's what I am here for.
Clearing up mistakes
Reminding people of common sense
Point out that just because we want something to be true, doesn't mean it is.
Expressing my views on MA that I have done and seen in over 30 years and on 3 different continents
Posting pics of scantly clad babes

[MasterKiller]

It doesn't matter HOW MUCH someone wants TCMA to have a ground game, the fact is, they don't have it.

Sense. Stop making it.

[KC Elbows]

I think you may be confused Dan, its not whether TCMA has a ground game of ANY kind, every MA has that.
Its whether it has an effective ground game, or a ground game that can be viewed as comparbale to those that HAVE BEEN PROVEN effective.
It does NOT.
See, outside of GnP, the only ground game there is is grappling.
TCMA does not have that.

It doesn't matter HOW MUCH someone wants TCMA to have a ground game, the fact is, they don't have it.
By the way, dropping to the floor and kicking and punching from the floor and rolling around on the floor does NOT constitute a "ground game".

Traditional chin na, in some branches, had pieces of it, and some branches still train those pieces. Largely single techniques, yes, like arm bars on the ground, guillotines, common chokes and locks as done on the gound: not a system per se, merely techs, but this is not the same as no proven techs, the techs are largely the same as any other style training them.

The difference is not in the content of traditional chin na, but the likelihood of a branch actually being aware of these moves and training them. Actually working these locks and chokes would be better than what most schools have, but, truth be told, it still would not constitute a system, that part is true, but a total absence of even sone basic techs of ground fighting is erroneous: I've seen one line of snake boxing that stressed using the waist for positioning on the ground, and one text that included some moves that are bread and butter ground fighting techniques(the aforementioned chin na fa, which Tim Cartmell made available in english).

This is not to suggest kung fu has everything, or that ground fighting isn't potentially important, just that any assessment of what tcma is is going to fall into difficulties because of the varied material. Training with weapons, as far as effectiveness, is still, by every criterion, more important. Especially fissionable material.

Additionally, anyone who has not seen a cop use his car to hold someone at the end of a standing lock, without another cop involved, needs to get out of the suburbs.

Flame on!

[Dragonzbane76]

Additionally, anyone who has not seen a cop use his car to hold someone at the end of a standing lock, without another cop involved, needs to get out of the suburbs.

using anything, just not a static lock or controlling manu in static. Most times its the ground, easies and simpliest to get to.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've seen Tim's stuff and have his book, there is some debate as to where those moves came form by the way, with quite a few suggesting that they came from Judo because of the time period and those moves NOT being noted anywhere before that time.

[KC Elbows]

I've seen Tim's stuff and have his book, there is some debate as to where those moves came form by the way, with quite a few suggesting that they came from Judo because of the time period and those moves NOT being noted anywhere before that time.

Damo invented the Japanese people, so your point is moot.

Where is this debate taking place?

[KC Elbows]

using anything, just not a static lock or controlling manu in static. Most times its the ground, easies and simpliest to get to.

No one is suggesting a static use, and I'm pretty sure for cops the choice of a car is very common, since that's often the context in which some cops are dealing with people, but the ground is also an option. However, I've seen the car used often in life and in footage, so it seems that there is a bit of a problem with the claim that it's only occuring when multiple cops are involved, cause I'm pretty sure everyone has seen lots of the same footage I've seen.

[Dragonzbane76]

wasn't refuting the car option, just stating that you probably won't see a cop or CO try to put a static lock on someone without the aid of the ground or surrounding area or another cop/co.

[KC Elbows]

wasn't refuting the car option, just stating that you probably won't see a cop or CO try to put a static lock on someone without the aid of the ground or surrounding area or another cop/co.

My point is you often see standing locks, however, it's just not standing in the sense of "you're magically held in place here in mid air", which no one is arguing here, but several(not you) are arguing as if everyone else is saying that's how a standing lock works. Anything that locks out a limb is obviously a lock, this does not mean it is a lock on all options or that it cannot be escaped from the standing position. In fact, all those arguing for standing locks that I've read the last few pages have stated, among other things, that they are then transitioned into other things. No one is arguing for static standing locks, but several are arguing against imaginary people arguing for it.

That said, I routinely lock people in zero g on a surfaceless plane.

[YouKnowWho]

Kung Fu

- has ground game that you take your opponent all the way down to the ground and then choke him, arm bar him, or strike him.

- does not have ground game that when you are on the bottom, you try to get back on top, or your try to get out of your opponent's mounting, arm bar, or choke.

Kung Fu has "offense" ground skill but lack "defense" ground skill. In other words, Kung Fu has no "testing" for ground game.

[KC Elbows]

Kung Fu

- has ground game that you take your opponent all the way down to the ground and then choke him, arm bar him, or strike him.

- does not have ground game that when you are on the bottom, you try to get back on top, or your try to get out of your opponent's mounting, arm bar, or choke.

We're not supposed to get to this part of the discussion until page twenty-eight. You're giving away the secrets, man.