Talk:Grappling/Archive 2

Recent edits

Very good edits Nate. It was time to remove those references that told grappling is submission wrestling and also differentiate grappling as a martial art. I specially liked the analogy with strink... Grappling is to fighting as striking is also to fighting. Regards Loudenvier 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

I fail to see how editing a direct quote from reliable published source can be considered a good edit. Penciljunk 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is more correct now. But, anyway, which quote and source you were talking about? I really didn't analyzed it. Could you please copy it here in the talk page so that I could review it too (and maybe put it back in the article). Loudenvier 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to use a direct quote? If you want to then it should be acknowledged as such, still dispute that it is a good source. --Nate 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's refering to this

Grappling also called submission wrestling refers to the gripping, handling and controlling of an opponent without the use of striking, typically through the application of various grappling holds and counters to various hold attempts. Grappling can be used in both a standing position, where it is known as stand-up grappling, and on the ground, where it is known as ground grappling. Grappling is an essential part of both clinch fighting and ground fighting.

from the referance --Nate 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand the justification for editing and\or massaging the opinion of any reliable published source; in this case FILA-Wrestling and their definition of grappling. If there are opposing opinions and definitions of grappling from other reliable published sources, they too should be included in their entirety. Penciljunk 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph certainly needs to be rewritten, it is bordering on plagiarism in its current form and is very redundant. There also needs to be a new picture - does anyone know if the NAGA archives are free-use? FlowWTG 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Submission Wrestling vs. Grappling

I don't think Grappling and Submission Wrestling to be synonyms. Submission Wrestling is a new form of grappling competition. Grappling is just like striking, it's an aspect of fighting. I think this definition to be pretty much in error. But it comes from FILA, and its reliable, but it could be pretty much biased or wrong, just like using the Gracie sites to substantiate claims (Rickinson 400+ victories, Hélio moral victory over Kimura, roots of BJJ in old schools of jiu-jitsu rather than in Judo, etc.). From WordNet 2.0:

the sport of hand-to-hand struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down [syn: wrestling, rassling]

In other words, grappling is a synonym to wrestling. I would pretty much like to remove the submission wrestling thing, since submission wrestling is just another kind of grappling competition. Loudenvier 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that an article entry in wikipedia about Grappling cannot be used as a synonym of submission wrestling, which is a modality recognized by FILA. Grappling is more general in scope. That's why I cannot agree with using FILA's definition in the opening. But instead of changing this I think it would be more constructive if we try to find a consensus here in the talk page. Waiting for your comments. Regards Loudenvier 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Oxford, The words Grapple and Wrestle are considered synonyms when used as a verb (to grapple, to wrestle) or with the -ING prefix; grappling and wrestling. Both words also exists as noun derivatives with the prefix -ER; grappler and wrestler.

However, Oxford does not acknowledge grappling, the derivative of the word 'grapple', as a noun to exist in the same capacity as boxing and wrestling. So the concept in which you are trying to use the word 'grappling' doesn't actually exist. At least under the umbrella of International Federation of Wrestling Styles the word 'grappling' could be considered a neologism. Penciljunk 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Grappling is analogous to Striking, in this context a synonym to wrestling (to wrestle). Grappling is know in the fighting community (and outside) as a form of combat without strikes. Submission wrestling is just like Jiu-Jitsu, a modality of fight with specific rules. I think stating in the lead that Grappling is also known as Submission wrestling is a mistake, or at least leads to confusion. I think we could make the lead looks better by changing it. In fact, removing the allusion to Submission wrestling would suffice. We can state that the FILA uses the terms interchangeably though. What do you think? Loudenvier 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less acknowledged in the Judo article:

According to the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA), judo is one of the four main forms of amateur competitive wrestling practiced internationally today (the other three being Greco-Roman wrestling, Freestyle wrestling and Sambo).

I would only add that Submission wrestling is also another main form of amateur competitive wrestling. Regards Loudenvier 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Until we find such an opinion that can be attributable to a reliable source, omitting submission wrestling would just be interjecting our own personal POV. Would you disagree with this? Penciljunk 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Grappling is (in my view) a skill set/type of technique which is what I was trying to get across g2g finish later --Nate 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is why is FILA an appropriate source? Is there any external evidence that they should be considered an authority on grappling? They are a wrestling organisation and so are not independent effectively they are a primary source. That is my point, have they been a large and focal part of the development of not wrestling based grappling? I don't beleve so they have jumped on the band wagon, the NAGA would be more appropriate but would still be a primary source.--Nate 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that FILA is not an appropriate sole source of the definition of grappling. Submission grappling/wrestling hs been around far longer than FILA's (poor - I've read their proposed rulebook and it makes me shudder) attempt to snap it up. Submission grappling is called so, after all, to differentiate it from general grappling - collegiate wrestling is grappling, Aikido is grappling, and I believe everyone can agree that Aikido is not wrestling. "Submission grappling" is not a redundant phrase. The reason it it somewhat appropriate to refer to participants in NAGA and such venues as "grapplers" is that any and all forms of grappling are legal under submission grappling rules, and many of the participants are not in fact submission specialists but amateur wrestlers - who are grapplers but not submission grapplers. I've never met or heard of anyone referring to "Grappling competitions" before FILA made it up - I would argue that their usage of the word is more of a neologism than the established meaning among the MMA and Brazilian Jiu-jisu community FILA is purporting by this invention to support. A bit rambling, but I believe my points are clear. FlowWTG 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One of wikipedia's principles is to not publish original work and original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. I am still awaiting reliable\published source that disputes the FILA definition of grappling. I will restore the the FILA definition of grappling, but in good faith I will add a comment represeting the POV being offered here. Penciljunk 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read anyone's comments? You cite FILA as reliable when it's not, it's a primary source.

Other people have asked for a Different source! --Nate 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Most importantly that edit breaks the wiki links to grappling hold etc.

secondly the lay out is not a compromises is a minor concession representing it as a minority view. My problem is its an inapropreate source --Nate 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because FILA is the primary source for grappling, wouldn't that make it impossible for it to be considered unreliable? Penciljunk 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that FILA's months-old wrestling subtype "Grappling" shares a name with a pre-existing term, in wide usage, that has been around for at least a decade. Additionally, FILA is not impartial on this matter, they have stated publicly that their intention in this matter is to bring the sport of submission grappling under their authority. By characterizing "grappling" as a subtype of wrestling, they reinforce their authority over a sport which is 95% derived from Brazilian Jiu-jitsu - and I don't know of any movement to redefine that martial art as a subtype of wrestling. FlowWTG 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if we could find citations for these statements, these statements should also be included in the article. Some times a wikipedia article is more complete when it has two opposing (cited) opinions. I am not interested in excluding information in wikipedia, I would propose we put in as much referenced information as possible. Penciljunk 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I would not consider Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to be a sub-group of wrestling, I would consider it to be some form of luta livre. Penciljunk 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! I have included FILA definition and also linked to submission wrestling. I have changed submission wrestling to link to grappling when it is categorized as a general term (see that article). But BJJ is a grappling sport, just like Judo, and also Brazilian Luta Livre Esportiva, but it's not a sub-group of wrestling, but can be categorized as a grappling martial art (I think I have confused myself with this convoluted statement :-). Loudenvier 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be more correct to use the term 'wrestling martial arts' in the English language on the grounds that the word wrestling was defined as a sport or contest in which two unarmed individuals struggle hand to hand with each attempting to subdue or unbalance the other for 300-400 years before the word grapple even entered the English language. Penciljunk 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Aikido, or similar Japanese Ju-jutsu styles? Would you consider them a form of wrestling? How about chinese Qin Na? Unlike BJJ they were never influenced by any form of wrestling, they don't really concern themselves with any form of positional control or dominance, and they are not striking-based arts - what are they? If you examine their articles, they are listed as grappling (and not by Loudenvier, Nate1481, or me). This is evidence of the widespread and accepted usage of the term as a supercategory containing all grabbing, controlling, locking, etc.

Wrestling has come to mean specific things in English. I've never met anyone that would look at Aikido and call it wrestling, and I belive it would be disingenuous to do so. FlowWTG 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, what you have are POVs that are not attributable to a reliable source. And even if you could attribute a reliable source with is contrary opinion, it would not result in the exclusion of a second opinion. Penciljunk 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The point it your's are not attributable to a reliable source, only a primary (therefore possibly biased) source. --Nate 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunaltely FILA seems to be on a quest to embrace grappling martial arts as they did with Sambo. They even consider Judo a major form of amateur wrestling. That's why they can't be considered a NPOV source. They have a vested interest on the issue. Loudenvier 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a compromise?

[1] I've done some rewording to differentiate the skill set from the sport (and some general bits), comments. --Nate 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We're getting closer, although wrestling and BJJ are not technically sports. Wrestling is a type of 'art' while BJJ is a unique dicipline. It may be more correct to say something like collegiate wrestling, freestyle wrestling, Judo, grappling and MMA could be considered grapple based sports. Penciljunk 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Listing types of wrestling individual doesn't bother me I'd disagree & say there is a sport of BJJ, which is a sub set of the art (in the same manner as Judo) indeed the article lists it as a martial art & combat sport.

'Grapple based' however dose not make sense, is English your 1st language? 'To Grapple' is an action, so to do so is Grappling! --Nate 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the scope of the article should be grappling as a verb and the word grappling should redirect to grapple much like striking redirects to strike? Penciljunk 12:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Only it dosen't, & strike is about industrial action

No, you are. A strike can be a single action, a grapple, could be plausible as a single encounter that used grappling the skill set e.g. "we're going to grapple". If you want an article called 'grapple' go write it, but it probably belongs in Wikitionary. --Nate 13:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to pull myself out of the grappling talk page for some time. Regards, Penciljunk 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Grappling" wrestling style as section of article

In my opinion, the FILA definition of "Grappling" should have its own section, perhaps with links to Submission wrestling (which I notice already has a section on the FILA-sponsored version of that sport). FlowWTG 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

This issue was posted with a request for a Third Opinion. Unfortunately, Third Opinions are for disputes between two editors only; if you wish additional input into this issue, please direct your requests to Requests for Comments. Snuppy 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New Picture and citation for claim in Types of Grappling

The current headlining picture is the same as used in the FILA article on grappling which the opening paragraph already too closely resembles. If anyone has any appropriate pictures, preferably of a submission grappling, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, or similar eclectic grappling sport, a replacement would be appreciated. We could use a pic similar to those present in the mixed martial arts article even.

Additionally, the {fact} tagged claim in the Types of Grappling subsection really needs cleaned up, it's been there forever. We either need to remove it or find a source - would the sherdog list of most successful styles suffice? [here] If not, I suggest it be removed. FlowWTG 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pic

This [2] or one of the selection here [3] any votes? --Nate 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Grappling categorization

Due to some disagreements as to whether certain martial arts (such as aikido) should be categorized as grappling, it seems necessary to comprehesively deal with "grappling". I have reviewed all of the grappling technique-related pages, and have prepared the following chart. If the chart is accurate and acceptable, we should revise this article and some others to more accurately reflect the relationships between the sub-types of grappling, so that readers and editors may more clearly determine what is and is not "grappling".

                                             Grappling
                                                 |
         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         |                                                                             |
   Grappling hold                                                             Throw (grappling)
         |                                                                             |
   ------------------------------------------                    -----------------------------------------
   |               |                        |                    |            |             |            |
Clinch          Pinning                Submission/            Pick-up        Hip         Shoulder       Leg
                                     Pain compliance
                                            |
                       ---------------------------------------------
                       |                    |                      |
                   Joint locks           Chokeholds           Compression lock
                       |
 ---------------------------------------------
 |        |          |          |            |
Arm      Leg       Spine      Wrist     Small joint

This pretty much makes sense to me, and deviates only slightly from what a few of the articles state. The articles treat submission and pain compliance as two different things, when (as far as I know) "submission" is usually a sport term, and "pain compliance" is a self-defense/law enforcement term, and both are referring to the same strategic concept. Also, "small joint" and "wrist" (under joint locks) may be redundant. Finally, no article appears to deal with what type of technique the aikido/jujutsu joint manipulation and balance manipulation "throws" are, such as kotegaeshi, sumi-otoshi, kaitennage, kurumanage, shihonage, etc... Maybe some of them are joint locks that sometimes throw a (trained) opponent, or maybe we need to fit "balance manipulation" somewhere under "throws".

Regardless, the grappling article needs to do a better job of discussing the differences between sport grappling and self-defense grappling. As it stands, it could give the impression that the primary kind of grappling is for sport, and not making clear that several types of grappling (such as jututsu) was developed for combat first, and later evolved into a sport. Bradford44 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, some could be simplified, subs of joint locks could be location, also compression locks are arguable a type of joint lock, and will necessarily have over lapping subs. Throws probably need to have take downs as a sub & leg/hip/shoulder/pick-up seems over simplified to me, also where do aikido style wrist throw etc fall?. Would the Judo divisions be appropriate, considering the large range of throws

It is a complex topic & not sure a tree is the best resolution, maybe a web would be more accurate? the problem there is clarity. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a start. By putting joint locks beneath "grappling hold" there is an intimation that these are groundwork, when joint locks are often applied to control a standing opponent (think policeman with the old hand up the back trick). They are not always "pain" or "submission" based either, sometimes being "leverage" based (if an advanced aikido practictioner gets two hands on your wrist in a sword-like grip he can easily force you to the ground without you feeling much pain). Chokeholds and strangulations are not really intended as submissions or pain either (except in sport) - anatomical knockout perhaps ;) I don't like "pick-up" for the throw category either, but I can't think of a better description for "te-waza" type techniques. :( I think it's worth separating standing and groundwork in the article, since grappling changes quite significantly between these modes. -- Medains 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick points:

1. The problem with including "standing" and "ground" as categories is that many of the techniques in the chart can be done from both standing and on the ground. For example, at least one technique from every topic underneath "submission/pain compliance" can be executed both from the ground or while standing. On the other hand, most throws are to be executed while standing, except that many aikido throws may be executed during suwari-waza - is that standing or groundwork? See the problem? They are two different types of categories; one is the type of technique be executed (pin, lock, throw, etc...) and the other is the method by which it is being executed (while standing or while on the ground). Differences between execution during groundwork or while standing should certainly be explored in the articles whenever relevant, but organization based those differences, in my opinion, doesn't work.
2. Please be aware that I am not suggesting that this chart be reproduced in any article, I am only suggesting that we use a chart here to develop a system of categorization so that the articles will be definitionally consistent, and we can figure out whether an art (like aikido) should be called grappling or not. Once it becomes clear that the practice of joint locks and throws are technically types of grappling, we (theoretically) can stop arguing whether aikido is a grappling art or a throwing art. Plus, we can eliminate a significant amount of redundancy across the grappling related articles. Another good use for this chart would be to reorganize the categories that these articles are currently in, which will also help a great deal where we have 100+ judo technique articles that need assessment and categorization (if not rewrite or deletion).

So please keep suggesting revisions to the chart until we have something we all are happy with, and will be a good tool to improve article clarity. Bradford44 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about renaming the "submission/pain compliance" to "opponent manipulation" or some similar phrase - each of the techniques beneath that involve moving or restricting a part of the opponents anatomy by using your body/weapon, whilst a clinch is "holding on" and a pin is restricting against the floor or other surface. -- Medains 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Grappling template

Created this A while back and forgot about it, would it be worth moving to the main space and starting to use it here and on the linked articles? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

The term "physical advantage" is general enough to cover an improvement in position, a submission, or an injury to the opponent.

Grappling does not include strikes or weapons. Some martial arts may combine grappling techniques with the offensive use of weapons or strikes, but those disciplines cannot be considered to be pure grappling, but instead a combination of grappling and other martial arts. Defense against weapons or strikes (w/o the use of weapons or strikes) can still be considered grappling.

Throws are distinct from takedowns. Many throws, especially in Greco-Roman, take place when one wrestler is down and the other on top (such as the reverse gut wrench). Also, many throws do not result in control (for instance in judo, freestyle wrestling, greco-roman, and sambo) and are, therefore, distinct from a takedown which results in a superior position for the top grappler. Also, I know of no case where pulling guard is considered to be a takedown for the person pulling guard. Points are never awarded for it and it is either considered a neutral position or a dominant position for the top man. I realize that pulling guard takes the action from the feet to the ground, but that is trying to apply a literal definition to the term and is emphatically not what a takedown means in common grappling vernacular. See the official rules for bjj at http://www.ibjjf.org/rules.htm for a definition of a takedown in bjj.

I have never heard the word "transition" to refer to turnovers, escapes, sweeps, or reversals. In my experience "transition" almost always means to go from one move to another quickly or fluidly. For example: to transition from a kneebar to a footlock or from a triangle attempt to an armbar. I think turnovers, escapes, and reversals are distinct categories like takedowns in that they describe a relative positional change.

"Manoeuvring to an improved position" is too general of a phrase to describe an escape. For instance a sweep or takedown results in a better position, but is not an escape. Jared Manning (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply that all grappling includes weapons, but in the broader sense it doesn't exclude them, or focus purely on defences, as this would exclude every weapon based joint lock, of which kobudo includes many.

Throws & takedowns are only distinct under specific rules, if your not talking about scoring points then the line is very blurred. For example sacrifice throws are indisputably throws but by definition end with both of those involved on the ground. I was specificity trying to avoid looking at a specific systems rules, again ignoring points. The simplest definition of a grappling takedown is "a way of taking an opponent to the ground" which pulling guard is, weather it scores point is irrelevant in a general article. The key point here is that this is the lead so is trying to give an accurate 'flavour' rather than the precise details, more could be in the main section an the details of how different arts & sports use the terms would be better covered in the articles on Throw (grappling) and Takedown (grappling).

The use of 'Transition' was an attempt to come up with a catch all term, mainly because it is accurate descriptively in general English as well as the specific use. I have tried to rephrase the escapes bit let me know what you think. --Nate^t/_c 10:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If "throughout the world" is "peacocking" how else do you stress that virtually every culture has some sort of grappling style?

I think "pure" grappling excludes weapons. Any move that makes offensive use of a weapon is no longer pure grappling. Since this article is about grappling, I think it confuses things to bring up the use of weapons in the opening paragraph. I think any discussion about disciplines that incorporate weapons use should be in a paragraph further down the page.

You are, perhaps, not understanding how broadly the term "throw" is used in Olympic Wrestling. A throw does not need to occur with both grapplers on their feet. Many Greco throws occur well after the takedown when one wrestler is clearly down and the other clearly up. In these Greco high-lights every single throw shown started after the takedown with one wrestler in the down position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfDDXpjFtP0 I think it is a mistake to group takedowns and throws together when they are only sometimes related.

I also don't like saying that grappling moves have the intent of injuring the opponent. In competition this is almost never the case. In a self defense situation it's different, of course. But if we use the term "physical advantage" I think it's appropriate because then in the "Techniques" Section we have expounded on just what that means.

An escape includes getting back to the feet from the bottom. In American Folkstyle Wrestling getting this type of escape is a major part of the game. Also, going from underneath mount (or a number of inferior positions) back to guard can be considered an escape. Seems like we would want to keep that definition general enough to include everything. Not sure why we need specific examples in a definition that should be general. Jared Manning (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Why was this page moved? It covers grappling as a general topic. Moving it to a more specific page title is hardly standard procedure. Replacing Grappling with a very specific topic (the "Grappling" FILA sport, rather than grappling in general) is all the more questionable. FlowWTG (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)