Grappling is more preferable than Striking in a 1v1 brawl.

-->
@oromagi
I think you mentioned you used to be in the army before, is that true?

nope! maybe Barney?

I think you mentioned you used to be in the army before, is that true?

(In the forums I think)

Well, if it is wrong then it isn't real TKD.

Could you cast a vote please?

The implementation of other styles isn’t significant enough for it to be considered a hybridized version, so it invariably falls into one category.

Your dojo is exceptional, but what you are taught is not accessible in most TKD dojos. McDojo’s and ATA are to blame for this.

The majority of current TKD dojos teach what was demonstrated in the videos. Infact, the only way for TKD to be useful nowadays is to cross-train in other styles.

"BJJ may not be a 'pure' grappling style like Greco Roman-Wrestling because of the use of strikes but it is still technically categorized as grappling."

Well if it incorporates other things than grappling then it isn't grappling. If it, by its very nature, disagrees with its own classification, then it can't be that classification. It is a hybrid form. Virtually every form of martial arts is not one style. They are all hybrids of everything. TKD has grappling in it. Kung Fu has judo in it. Wing Chun has submission holds. These are all elements of grappling. Therefore they are not "striking" arts.

"Now the defense they teach in TKD like the High Inward Strike which is generally taught to people to defend against people with a blade is fundamentally useless."

First of all, that is NOT what that is used for. When I was taught TKD, they told me never to use that for knives because they can simply just stab you instead. The High Inward Strike is designed for grabs to throw the person off-balance because their momentum will be redirected across their body. You are supposed to follow it up with kneeing them into the side to crack their ribs. But even moreso, they said it is generally a weak block for mostly everything else and should be substituted for an outward block because an inward strike will likely not stop the momentum of a punch.

Knife defense is usually only taught at much higher levels and is mostly locks and submissive holds with disarming techniques. But even so, at my do jang they said "this stuff is all for show. It probably won't work in the real world. The best thing to do when they have a knife is to de-escalate the situation. If you can't de-escalate the situation, then redirect the blow using simple blocking techniques. But you will probably get stabbed or sliced."

"Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward."

idk where that black belt got their black belt, but that punch was the exact opposite of what I was taught. First of all, any TKD instructor who is worth their salt will tell you NOT to completely extend your arm like that. Second of all, you are supposed to aim with the index and middle finger nuckles, which will concentrate the punch into its most potent positions, which she did not do. Third of all, the punch loses its potency and power when you do NOT snap your fluid punch motion. It is those three combinations that make the punch powerful. Without it you might as well just slap them.

The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work."

I've actually successfully blocked many a punch using my TKD training. So I can tell you from experience that that is a load of horseshit. At my do-jang, we had weekly sparring classes. They allowed head punches and kicks and basically everything except groin shots and breaking bones. The blocks work. Let me tell you, they do.

But back to that video. In my do-jang, we NEVER told people to use those blocks for fights. They were considered those "just for show" blocks that wouldn't work in the real world. The blocks we were taught to use for sparring are the redirection of the punch and the leg block that muay thai fighters often use. This is because a kick from a seasoned pro would require kicking force to counter. Plus, it allows a fighter to retaliate with a kick of their own. For punshes we used the in to out block and snapped it in place with complete force while making sure the top third of the forearm was used. This takes advantage of the weaker inner forearm bone that is also extra sensitive to pain and also redirects the punch outward and away from the body, allowing the TKD fighter to counter with a punch or a kick by redirecting their opponent's energy.

In short, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. My do jang actually took the time to teach us what works and doesn't work in the real world, not in the fantasy land of TV movies and forum debates and tournaments. Granted, most do-jangs do not teach sparring, and this is a mistake, but mine did, and I am thankful for it. They also complained that most do-jangs do not properly teach techniques. Thankfully, mine did, and we practiced it in sparring class, so we knew it worked.

BJJ may not be a 'pure' grappling style like Greco Roman-Wrestling because of the use of strikes but it is still technically categorized as grappling.

Now the defense they teach in TKD like the High Inward Strike which is generally taught to people to defend against people with a blade is fundamentally useless.

Similarly, you can't learn to punch properly using the punches from TKD and if you attempt it, will just feel extremely awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67wTxE11EGk

The blocking in TKD is also insufficient. It will almost always NEVER work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7L9ImZH3Jo

TKD teaches some throws, but the use of grappling is minimal. So minimal in-fact, that it is unable to be used.
So this may mean that it isn't a PURE-striking sport, but it still falls under the category of striking.

It definitely EMPHASIZES grappling, but it isn't technically a grappling martial art. Just like TKD emphasizes striking, but it ISN'T a striking art.

A true grappling art is greco-roman wrestling. There aren't punches or kicks in it at all.

Because it isn't. It's a martial art. They first teach you punches, kicks, and blocks before you learn the judo stuff:
https://youtu.be/zcPlJLn-Mp8
https://youtu.be/ANbPXqAEUTU
https://youtu.be/glDbjKIDLNo

The first thing you learn is striking techniques in a gym not focused on winning tournaments.

Wait.

Why do you say BJJ isn’t grappling?

But on a different train entirely. BJJ isn't a grappling martial art. Idk why some people think that. So most of PRO's round 1 arguments are nonsense. In REAL BJJ they teach you blocks, sweeps, kicks, and punches. Because, you know, it was created for self defense.

Additionally, REAL TKD isn't a kicking martial art. Yes, there's kicking in it, but even my short time in TKD I learned multiple types of punches, blocks, and kicks. And at the black belt level they teach throws, submission techniques, finger locks, and you begin to learn grappling (which is similar to wrestling). It isn't just a "wow, pretty kicks" sport. In competitions it is, but that is because of bullshit rules. Traditionally it wasn't like that at all in competitions.

So this debate is debating straw men of fighting styles.

The only martial arts I know of that aren't a compendium of different techniques are greco-roman wrestling and sumo wrestling. But that is obviously because they were invented for entertainment purposes and strikes were always banned.

"Your girlfriend arranged to cheat on you in front of you abusively with some guys who either hate you or bully you and I don't mean consensually. You are taken by surprise and yes I get it '1v1' but you are originally just 1v1 and this is the entire problem..."

This sounds oddly personal...

Rule 2 can be declared void, given the circumstances.

“BULLSHIT! The women Ted bundy chose were built like dolls/barbies. They couldn't have outgrappled him, he's the type of dude that had wrist-flexing exercises regularly, he trained that strangle and grapple technique to the hilt. Also, he had tortured them for days before killing them, raping them multiple times. The only hope they had was effective striking but they were so scared they didn't know what to do.“

Strawman. Out-grappling implies that they overpowered him, I only said put up enough resistance to last long enough to escape.

“ In fact, it is instinctual to grapple back during a rape. I am sure many of them tried. The instinct when grabbed and overpowered is to push and grapple back. The less instinctive thing is to knee them hard in the stomach because you feel so weak and powerless you underestimate how that can affect their breathing and make them loosen their grip elsewhere. Effective striking was his victims' only hope and he intentionally had abused and malnourished them a lot before killing.”

Grappling and striking would be necessary in this scenario. There is no logical reason to believe only one could save them.

“One of Bundy's victims was 12 years old. My opponent's sick and vile advice is this 12 year old could have out-wrestled a grown man. Mos tof his victims were slim early-20s.”

Nope. Never made that claim.
You frequently resort to the use of straw-mans to make hyper-emotional arguments.
I was only referring to the women.

Please vote and please be fair with rule 2, I was genuinely busy, it was literally Christmas Eve and Christmas and I forgot the exact hour of this debate.

I think what's ashame is a coward needing such severe time restriction to hold their own. This guy has no real life distractions near Christmas clearly.

I am finished and it's up to you how to punish me.

It's a shame you didn't make rule 2 more explicit - the way it's currently written, the punishment for breaking it could either be the loss of the debate or the loss of a conduct point. Generally, in ambiguous cases, voters will err on the less harsh punishment.

That's fair - I was thinking more of some other common scenarios, e.g:

-You're walking alone on a dark night. Some drunk with a knife tries to mug you. In this situation, being aware of your surroundings is crucial - if you try and grapple, and his friend sneaks up behind you, then you're basically dead. Striking allows you to maintain situational awareness.

-Someone challenges you to a 1v1 fight. When things start to go bad for them, then their friend jumps in from the crowd to "help"- yes, it's cliche, but I'm sure it does happen quite often.

BTW, this link might be useful: it gives some interesting quantitative data on how street fights actually go.

https://www.highpercentagemartialarts.com/blog/2019/3/6/how-long-do-street-fights-actually-last-and-what-can-we-learn-from-that

If there’s a situation where you won’t only be struggling against one person, then it would be illogical to use grappling.

But most of the time, you’ll be able to tell.

Situational awareness and intuition will more often than not allow you to anticipate whether you’ll be dogpiled or engaging one person the whole time.

It’s all about reading the room and in the chance you are outnumbered, any resistance is futile.

If you are getting coffee and a guy in line is alone and yelling at the waitress, you intervene and tell him to stop. Then he gets mad and challenges you to a fight in the parking lot, it is pretty safe to use grappling.

If you’re at a party and your friend gets drunk so you exchange harsh words and it turns into a fight, the likelihood of other people jumping in to go against you is unlikely. They’re probably going to try and break it up.

Likewise, if a perpetrator/instigator is with a group, then I’d say you wouldn’t grapple. But it’s usually pretty easy to tell if more people are going to jump in.

IMO the resolution is broad enough to allow this kind of derailing - a random street fight could entail all sorts of factors affecting the effectiveness of striking vs grappling.

-Is your opponent armed?
-Is it a 1v1 all the way through?
-What is your own body build?
-How strong is your opponent compared to you?
-Are you looking to beat up or subdue your opponent? Is legality an issue?
-How far are you and your opponent willing to go?

In a straight, fair fight with rules, grappling should win most of the time. However, in a street fight, I feel striking is more consistent and lessens the risk of personal injury.

Discussing the trivialities of extraordinary circumstances only derails the thread.

You can ignore anything you want to ignore and assume things aren't a big deal that are.

Any complaints against the 1v1 resolution aren't really that big of a deal.

But further mention of it will probably be ignored.

I predict much of this debate is going to come down to semantics over the "1v1" part of the resolution.

Is that my cue to sound the boss music?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2WB0AyAjA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct5E72lu_Ic

you better be ready boy

Most grapplers are willing to eat shots. A lot of people are untrained anyway, so their attacks can be circumvented by a proper takedown.

I accept your input as valid if some day the grappler can surpass the skilled locking, blocking and striking.

They better hope it all stays 1v1 for their grappling to be useful.

You are an advocate of fantasy based fighting. If you actually watch fights. If you actually train to fight, you will realize quickly that hitting someone with a shirt doesn't work. I was in jiujitsu class one day, and a guy was sitting on a guys back, with his belt wrapped around his neck, pulling with both hands trying to choke him out with his belt. It didn't work. What worked was a rear naked choke.

People get kicked all the time. Grapplers eat shots all the time. Most of the time though, they will get the clinch, secure a takedown, and dominate. I am primarily a striker. When I throw kicks, sometimes they get caught, and I get swept. If you think it's possible to totally stay on the outside indefinitely against a good grappler, then you're delusional, or simply ignorant of what fighting is actually like.

Against someone with a blade, most trained fighters (if they're wearing a belt.) remove their belt and wrap it around their arm to defend against the blade. Their arms are going to get stabbed, it's almost inevitable.

If someone is carrying a beer bottle, crow-bar, or baseball bat, then in this situation a grappler is practically the god of the domain. The ways in which a grappler can take control over this scenario are numerous.

I agree - I think the best course of action would be to take them down quickly (with striking), then run for your life. In a protracted fight, you run the risk of bleeding out even if you win.

I’m inclined to say no in the context of the debate.

But I believe striking is a better means of defense in a situation against someone with a blade. Grappling is useless here.

You can incapacitate them with a good few kicks to the patella and with solid boxing offense.

If the martial artist in your video did take up grappling despite her build being incompatible with the sport, could she use it against people her own height and size?

In that case, it opens up some interesting possibilities - per the definition of striking, "to hit or attack someone or something forcefully or violently." Does stabbing someone count as striking?

Yes. Circumstances are limitless. Weapons also apply.

I will just show you in the debate the harsh reality of why we handcuff people in custody and don't need to full-body restrict them generally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0qyyfmvGtI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwcUJTDkqE (Skip to 2:09)

In this second video, there is a demonstration of the superpowers of grappling. The 250 charges the 150 grappler, tackles him, but the 150 uses the momentum to roll on top.

Similarly, knowing grappling can help because if you're trying to outrun someone and they tackle you and you have no ground game, you're screwed. However, if you have decent grappling experience and a big guy tries to tackle you, then you can counter by performing a sprawl and then putting him in a headlock while proceeding to choke him out.

you know what i will have to just risk missing this if it's dragged to a certain day (actually not Christmas).

Maybe. Being a versatile fighter is therefore the solution.

I won't deny that there are certainly situations where striking is better. But there isn't always a size gap between two people in a fight, so I'd say in most situations where the possibilities are limitless, grappling is more beneficial as its diversity is more adaptable. (Not always the case.)

Andy Kaufman never lost a wrestling match against women. Nowadays, if a prime Andy Kaufman time-traveled to 2022, a BJJ chick would fold him like a pretzel.

To understand how deeply wrong and unnatural it is for all slim-built people to teach grappling over striking, you need to understand what their builds excel at vs are shit-tier at.

You cannot ever teach this woman to be this good at grappling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SYYzsyJCiQ

choreographed violence is not more artificial than rule-restricted MMA that is grappling-supremacist.

it depends on whether the brawl is professional

If, as you stated, we're considering "random street fights," then are potential weapons taken into account? Facing someone who might have a knife or gun dramatically changes the situation.

The resolution leaves some room for flexibility. For example, in a martial art that combines striking and grappling (e.g. Muay Thai), you could argue that striking is the more preferable part, but the grappling makes up for any weaknesses the opponent brings up.

it is important to note that both grappling and striking have their own unique strengths and weaknesses and the decision to use one over the other will depend on the specific circumstances of the situation. In some cases, grappling may be more effective, while in others, striking may be the better option. Ultimately, the choice of which technique to use will depend on the individual's level of skill, physical abilities, and the specific context of the situation.

You pay someone to train your future or current daughter in JiuJitsu, Judo and/or wrestling.

I pay someone to train mine in Kung Fu, Muay Thai, and/or Karate.

I know I will feel happy and safe with her vs a thug. Yours however, can't even get past his knife.

If you have any female relatives you truly care about that are ready to be proper feminists who will hold their own in a brawl and spar or even a slimmer or shorter man, you will encourage them to master striking, blocking and to be so vicious and accurate with it.

I want all mothers, sisters, daughters and more armed with more than just the good old pepper spray STRIKE WITH THE CAN move. I want a village, town, city armed with people who can take off their clothing and fucking choke a bastard out with it after throwing it to his (or her) eyes and striking their diaphragm and kicking them off balance but NOT grappling, instead staying higher and striking down, kicking the stomach and such making the person stay down arms out, not approaching them close enough for a comeback saying 'stay down' and calling the cops on speaker phone all limbs ready to attack and defend with.

That is the place I'd want to live. That is what even the skinniest of us can do with learning.

You cannot ever teach a skinny guy to outgrapple a muscular man, out-striking is hard but not unthinkable especially when cunning and dodging get involved.

America is over-saturated with this bullcrap 'everyone has a gun' mantra. Guess why guns beat everything? A bullet is a striking tool. Strikes > grapples.

Exactly, it's the inherent problem also with in-the-ring fighting as well. People only recognise and respect that people need to strike if a woman is vs a man as they all know the man will win once they grapple unless she does some ninja maneuvring to wrap her legs around his neck and not in a sexy way.

In most random fights, it is better to use grappling styles as a means of self-defense as opposed to striking styles. (At least, in general.)

(You never know the factors such as the height or build of the enemy, so grappling is more preferable as a style in unpredictable circumstances for everyone.)

The angle in which I'll be defending this point is from legality and adaptability.

There is no way you are telling me that if you are a chinese man trained in kung fu, in a street brawl with a big white or black man that is easily going to defeat you once on the ground that you aren't going to utilise strikes unless you're on a suicide mission or clueless.

This is the inherent advantage of being bigger and heavier; you inherently intimidate and can bait your opponent into strikes. That is also why 'self defence' laws have reasonable interpretation such that moving towards someone within their personal space in a threatening way justifies striking back (very questionable where this line is drawn but to not offer any grey area means a weaker, smaller opponent can never preemptively strike in defense before someone grapples them to the floor and they autolose the fight).