Grappling: Why Not?
Our class (SSS Durham) has a strict no-grappling rule. I have at times been asked why. So….
Grappling is inherently dangerous, so it would be grossly irresponsible to allow those that want to grapple to do so without regulation. In order to regulate grappling within the class, we would need to establish an agreed body of technique and how that technique is to be performed and applied. We would need to assess anyone who arrived with grappling skills – or who claimed to have such skills – to ensure they complied with what we consider appropriate. We would have to teach this body of technique.
I hold a 3rd Dan in jujutsu, along with numerous other qualifications in the field. I know how long it takes for a practitioner to reach a point where they can grapple safely in a class even when there are no large pieces of metal involved. I also know how badly grappling is taught in some HEMA classes, usually by people who have no grappling background. Grappling in a freeplay situation is not the same as performing drills; it is a live situation where something can go wrong with permanent consequences. To limit the risks we would need our members to reach a high standard in the grappling arts – certainly sufficient to engage in randori or the like.
Many of our members want to fence but have no interest in grappling. We would be wasting their time by forcing them to train, and some would be sufficiently uncomfortable they would leave us. Others would – rightly – be nervous of a freeplay situation on which they could be suddenly grabbed and thrown to the ground. Yet we would have to insist they trained, in order to enable them to safely be grappled by those who wanted to do so.
In addition to all the time spent teaching grappling rather than fencing, there would be other consequences. Grappling is far too often used as a crutch by those who cannot fence as well as they would like. Rather than having to retain a good posture and try to use the sword, it becomes possible to follow up an over-committed attack with a grapple and takedown attempt. If this succeeds, it can become a favoured tactic.
There are also medical considerations. There are some people who can fence without problems but whose health means they cannot engage in grappling. All it takes is someone in the heat of the moment to forget – or to want to ‘win’ badly enough that they disregard – guidelines on who can and who cannot be grappled and we may have a serious injury on our hands.
So, the implications of permitting grappling are a lot of time spent teaching that and not fencing, possible loss of members who are put off by the training or the possibility of being grappled in a freeplay, and increased risk for both members and instructors. On top of that it can become a crutch for those who prefer to bull through rather than become good at fencing.
Safer and simpler, then, to simply not permit it.
Grappling is inherently dangerous, so it would be grossly irresponsible to allow those that want to grapple to do so without regulation. In order to regulate grappling within the class, we would need to establish an agreed body of technique and how that technique is to be performed and applied. We would need to assess anyone who arrived with grappling skills – or who claimed to have such skills – to ensure they complied with what we consider appropriate. We would have to teach this body of technique.
I hold a 3rd Dan in jujutsu, along with numerous other qualifications in the field. I know how long it takes for a practitioner to reach a point where they can grapple safely in a class even when there are no large pieces of metal involved. I also know how badly grappling is taught in some HEMA classes, usually by people who have no grappling background. Grappling in a freeplay situation is not the same as performing drills; it is a live situation where something can go wrong with permanent consequences. To limit the risks we would need our members to reach a high standard in the grappling arts – certainly sufficient to engage in randori or the like.
Many of our members want to fence but have no interest in grappling. We would be wasting their time by forcing them to train, and some would be sufficiently uncomfortable they would leave us. Others would – rightly – be nervous of a freeplay situation on which they could be suddenly grabbed and thrown to the ground. Yet we would have to insist they trained, in order to enable them to safely be grappled by those who wanted to do so.
In addition to all the time spent teaching grappling rather than fencing, there would be other consequences. Grappling is far too often used as a crutch by those who cannot fence as well as they would like. Rather than having to retain a good posture and try to use the sword, it becomes possible to follow up an over-committed attack with a grapple and takedown attempt. If this succeeds, it can become a favoured tactic.
There are also medical considerations. There are some people who can fence without problems but whose health means they cannot engage in grappling. All it takes is someone in the heat of the moment to forget – or to want to ‘win’ badly enough that they disregard – guidelines on who can and who cannot be grappled and we may have a serious injury on our hands.
So, the implications of permitting grappling are a lot of time spent teaching that and not fencing, possible loss of members who are put off by the training or the possibility of being grappled in a freeplay, and increased risk for both members and instructors. On top of that it can become a crutch for those who prefer to bull through rather than become good at fencing.
Safer and simpler, then, to simply not permit it.
