Let’s open with advice
from Civil War Naval hero, Admiral David D. Farragut.
“The more you hurt the enemy, the less he will hurt you.”
No quarrel there, I
wager.
But…let us make sure
we actually practice what we may have just assented to.
Our discussion today
will primarily deal with the world of grappling: Both old school and new, both
vertical and horizontal.
But…let us use wisdom from
the striking arts to set up our strategic story.
Strikers use
combinations.
“Punches in bunches”
is an expression of strategic and tactical wisdom.
The attack that
contains the following: Jab/Rear Caulk Kick/Spearing Rear Elbow/Lead Cram
Elbow/Lead Chopper is made up of 5 Offensive Elements.
On bag, on pads, on
partners, in the street it is assumed to be delivered 1/2/3/4/5 in a lickety-split
no-pause manner.
I wager I have said nothing
ground-breaking here.
I also wager we would
agree that these same five assaultive elements delivered one at a time in a
staggered tempo no longer adheres to the definition of a combination.
Instead we have thrown
a series of tools in a manner more akin to a probe or full-power gambling of a “sure
thing.”
But…we all know, there
are no sure things, hence, combinations, punches in bunches.
Why?
We are gambling
that if the first one don’t get ya, the second one will, and if the second don’t
do it, three, four, and five are right behind it.
At no point in the
combination do we feel full fistic bite and halt.
That is, we don’t find
a small bite of meat on the jab, a good negligible bark of shin on the caulk kick,
but then feel full bone-chunking on the spear elbow and simply stop on that satisfaction.
“In bunches” wisdom
says, we keep throwing till the toes are up and the deed is done.
Why do we use
combinations this way?
It is superior
offensive strategy.
It is superior
defensive strategy.
I repeat the Admiral’s
dictum.
“The more you hurt the enemy, the less he will hurt you.”
If you have stuck with
me thus far, likely you are declaring this offering from, yours truly, a
long-winded restatement of the obvious.
And you are correct in
that estimation.
Let’s talk
grappling now.
It is when we hit the clinch,
or the ground that this hallowed advice we all agree upon seems to get royally
defenestrated.
We yell, “Punches
in bunches!” in training, but once the grappling commences, we see a shift towards
“Knock-out blows,” or “Swing for the fences” tactics.
That is, our combinations
become more about the maneuvering and less about the tactical arsenal.
We are willing to take
three, four, or more complicated steps to get to the rear-naked choke, or work
on canny crisscross hip-shifts for arm-bars treating steps towards an end result
as a stand-in for combinations.
But I ask,
[and the old-timers would ask as well] why do we abandon incessant offensive
attack once it gets to the scuffle?
Of course, I am not
de-valuing the aggressiveness of the scramble, the rides, floats, pins, set-ups
required to get to the hoped for “KO” blows.
Wrestling maneuverability,
when done right, is physically assaultive in and of itself, but…I think we can easily
see it still falls a bit short of the same “incessant intention to harm”
we find in the striking aspect of the game.
“I hear where you’re
coming from, Mark, but isn’t that the wisdom of the submission chain? Aren’t
these counter-for-counter chains the grappler’s correlate for the striker’s combination?”
Good question. An informed
one at that but…
Submission chains have
only a surface correlation to “Punches in bunches.”
Submission
chains are less a long series of attacks in the Admiral Farragut sense than a causal
link of assumed failed KOs.
That is, a submission
chain operates under the following assumption…
·
If my
Cobra Choke is blocked…
·
I will transition
to a Stacked Wrist-Fold.
·
If it is
blocked I will off-set to a North-South Dorsal
·
If I miss
the Knee-Pin I will…
·
Ad nauseum.
Each chain in a
submission is an admission that what was attempted prior did not work.
And let’s be clear,
submission chaining is a superior way to work but…
It is still not the same
combination strategy of the striker where each and every strike is an intended
bite even if a preceding bite bit HARD.
That brings us to…
“Red Scalping.”
Admittedly the term “red
scalping” only pops up a few times in the old vernacular but it stuck with me.
The term may be rare but the strategy of the old days most definitley was not.
To “red scalp” is nothing
more than to take a wrestling chain and treat it not as a “run it till you hit
your success link,” but…
Hit each
submission/hook/rip/crank/rip with full authority on down the line in true
striker’s combination fashion.
“Red scalping” in this
manner becomes overwhelmingly offensive and kyboshes much grappling defense as
you have ripped and blown by often before a semblance of the defense can be implemented.
A double-wristlock
chain that has 5 more red scalp links on it is meant to be run till its end.
One or more, or all of
these rips is gonna shred along the way. To the old-schooler this overwhelming
incessancy of attack was the ideal and not “Whoops, I guess I’ll try this
next.”
“The more
you hurt the enemy, the less he will hurt you.”
The intent is to take
submission chains and turn them into a steaming locomotive that will run the submission
track come hell or high water, creating less a chain than a pain train with an
end destination of victory and a track of devastation left in its smoke.
For a lookat a syllabus that outlines such an approach see here.
In The Black Box Project we provide old-school combat nitty-gritty
straight from the historical record.
For skinny on The Black Box Project itself.
[For
techniques, tactics, and strategies of Rough and Tumble Combat, Old-School
Boxing, Mean-Ass Wrestling, Street-Ready Frontier Scrapping & Indigenous
Ability culled from the historical record see the RAW Subscription Service, or
stay on the corral fence with the other dandified dudes and
city-slickers. http://www.extremeselfprotection.com
Comments
Post a Comment