Hey Scuff,
It would be really good if you could do some sort of technical Q&A on the technical aspects of Catch.
Would you be up for it?
Stu.
Wow, how do you know so much about Catch de braco?
Stu, I would be willing to give it a try.
I can however see some problems with it. First, the fact that I'm not a catch wrestler.
I incorporate alot of catch based submissions into my training and I have a keen interest in catch history. I feel as if I am developing a decent grasp of the subject, but these things don't make me a catch wrestler.
Then there is also the history of what has happened in the past whenever the subject has come up on the main forum. I certainly wouldn't want to create anything that would attract that type of posting.
There must be some real idiots here on the forums then Scuff.
I am not George Silver either. I just happen to know more about him and his system than most other people because I have been working with his manuals for so long and am passionate about his system. People (who often do only Kata and don't spar) get narky at me quite often about my "lack of lineage" etc. Sometimes it even concerns me. Then I look at the functional fencing skills our guys are developing and compare them to the "lineage guys" and laugh. I am not overly fond of paraphrasing Bruce Lee but these guys are really stuck in the classical mess.
Anyway, first question. Combination holds seem to be greatly favoured in the catch manual that I have. Why is this? Modern subwrestling seems to not use these at all. Is it the rules? The skill level? What do you think?
Stu.
"There must be some real idiots here on the forums then Scuff."
Boy, you can say that again ;)
Thankfully this forum has stayed pretty much troll free :)
That's actually a very good question Stu. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow as I'm not feeling well at all tonight.
"What I'm getting at here is that some who do seem fairly well informed insist that many if not most CACC holds, even the double-top, are derived from Judo / Jiu-Jitsu."
That's one you tossed out to me at one point. I've been mulling it over, and I think the influence was huge, although I don't think I'm ready to argue what technique was derived from where.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Drawn any conclusions yet?
Man, if I come across like a drunk it's because I'm so very sick right now and I'm pretty drugged up too :(
So why am I on here? I guess I'm an addict.
Jason, I haven't come to a firm conclusion. I'm troubled by my inability to find a DT reference older than about '06 or '08. Do you have any?
I do believe that the double top is so prefectly suited for a match with pins that makes sense that it was derived for such a match.
Stu, your question is pretty tough. Is your manual an american source? I bet not. American catch tended to be a little more direct, while the European style tended to use more chain wrestling. I actually have one source here that addresses it I believe. I'll take a look and see what it says.
I'd like to hear Jason's thoughts on this also.
I ?think? he'll support my thought that the rules are probably a major factor as the ultimate goal in cacc was the pin.
This is a subject I'd like to kick around a bit if others would give their thoughts?
Jake, did you see the BKB thread/threads?
the science of wrestling and art of jiu jitsu by lenderman is a good example of catch using modified judo techniques.I think the double wrist lock was there before the judo influence,also a good many toe holds
are probally pre judo.
Hi Scuff,
No it isn't American, it's Australian.
The Science of Wrestling and Jujutsu by W.E. Winthrow of the Winthrow Physical Culture institute Sydney.
(of which amusingly bugger all is jujutsu to my eye)
Cheers,
Stu.
I didn't Scuf, any BKB thread titles that I should keep an eye out for?
There's one on the second page here. Near the top, started by TFS.
I'll Top it.
I haven't seen the wrist lock demonstrated before jujutsu/judo became popular. I also don't recall reading of any matches ending that way early on, but they often don't say and I might not have noticed that anyway. So take all of that for whatever it's worth.
Liederman's nice, because it's easily accessible and he lays it out separately, but he's a bit later than what I'm talking about. For example, as early as April 1905, "young Muldoon" does a spread where he shows what can be done when he "combines wrestling and jiu-jitsu."
ttt to a great thread
Scuffler, I have recently acquired a copy of EJ Harrison's Wrestling. A while back you wrote negatively about it. Was it becaus eit was inaccurate or was it because it was boring. I am reading some of it now, and the guys of the EJMAS did not seem to regard it negatively.
I was just disappointed at what I got as compared to what I paid. I paid more for it than I will usually spend on a book and really didn't get much new except some of the info on "all in" style. Really for $10 / $15 I would have been fairly pleased but I paid a good bit more than that, my own fault really.
Is "All-In" Style real or is it a fabrication by Mr Harrisson?
It was real in terms of did exist, sort of. That was basically the slam-bam style of worked match when they first went away from making a work look like a real wrestling match.
ttt