MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - True Grappler vs. Pure Grappler
View Single Post
post #7 of (permalink) Old 11-21-2006, 01:53 AM
MMA Fanatic
Ybot's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by IronMan
I had this come up in a discussion a little while ago. I was trying to explain what I mean when I call myself a "true grappler." They didn't seem to understand what that means, because they thought it meant that I was a pure grappler. I just want to clarify the difference.
Never heard either of these terms used before. After reading your discription I still don't exactly understand what your getting at here. So I have the following questions:
A pure grappler is someone who really only does grappling. They are really only effective on the ground and, usually, only effective in one position. Their style limits them to fighting on the ground, which is fine, but in MMA it really limits alot of your options and creates a sort of one dimensional approach.
Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that your definition of a "Pure Grappler" is a one dimentional ground grappler. A guard fighter, a top fighter, etc. Is this what you meant? Anyway, my problem with this is that I consider the stand up portion of Judo to be grappling. A lot of Judoka would fit this discription, except their one dimentional grappling is in the clinching/gripping range.
Pure grappling can be done right, as seen with alot of the Gracies, and it can be done wrong, like with any single-minded approach to fighting.
I think a more specific example would help me understand. You mean like Royce mostly fighting from the guard? Is this an example of "right" or "wrong". I mean, his strategy looked right in the early UFC's, but his recent match with Hughs it didn't look so great. I also want to point out that most of the Gracies have excellent top games in sport grappling compitition. Does the fact that they fight well from the top too make these Gracies "true" Grapplers?
True grappling is based on Bruce Lee's philosophy, which I was exposed to a little while ago and decided to employ in my martial arts. It is also similar to Peter Ralston's idea of Chang Hsin.
Chang Hsin is an intresting concept. I had never heard of Peter Ralston before, and because of your post I looked him up. My question here is, can't someone who assosiates themselves with one style of grappling (like BJJ, Sambo, or Judo) also believe they are looking for the underlying truths in grappling? Don't these truths actually depend on the ultimate purpose of study. I mean, if you learn grappling to be a world class Judoka, turtling is important because you don't want to be pinned. Does the fact that you can be kneed in the head in MMA with the same strategy make it less true for the Judoka?
True grappling is for those of us who do not associate ourselves with any one school of thought in the way of grappling. We aren't really BJJ and we aren't really wrestling. We don't associate ourselves with any particular form or style, but, because most of us start out in a particular style, we end up using alot of other styles.
Anyway, intresting observations about how you classify yourself as a grappler. True grappler, Pure grappler, it seems realitive to me. But, maybe I just don't understand what your getting at...
Ybot is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome