Many styles seem to forego groundfighting...in particular Yoshinkan aikido (although Aikijujitsu styles such as Takeda ryu include it). Kali Majapahit is comprehensive and I see elements of groundfighting, while at the same time there is a strong emphasis on mobility. In that sense, the ground is used quickly, as an inescapable place where the opponent can no longer backup (ie. a "wall on the floor". It certainly is admirable to keep mobility, especially when faced with multiple attackers. But is such an approach really realistic?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f4051/f4051c90566e6319f86522f1a883175830a2bdd5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1e81/f1e819c742587645ef0df9428e94f78a2cf0bdb8" alt=""
two of my favorite reference materials here. If either of these guys ask for your wallet, give it to them quick. :-)
I have long admired groundfighting work by Gene Lebell and Mark Hatmaker both of whom I consider among the absolute best that can be found. While neither style seems to include deep philosophy (other than perhaps combat purism), technically and scientifically you have to respect the magic these guys have.
So where does that leave us? I suppose an Indian yogi would find little karmic value in the application of a good hammerlock for submission, I also find it hard to deny that groundfighting adds versatility to your fighting, the goal of which should be to feel comfortable in any environment and any condition.
I have more to study here, but in closing I think groundfighting skills remain practical and useful in our scope of training.
Stay Well Grounded!
No comments:
Post a Comment