# How does your WC deal with going to the ground...



## geezer (Jul 22, 2014)

Whether you get knocked down, taken down, or just slip and fall down, ending up on the ground is often a reality you have to deal with in a fight. So how does your WC address this possibility? What techniques and strategies do you employ to recover?


----------



## Marnetmar (Jul 23, 2014)

To avoid takedowns, my school actually likes to practice W.C a couple inches closer in than typical W.C range, and it actually helps to neutralize a lot of that. I know a lot of people have the "if he tries to throw you down, chop him in the back of the neck" mentality, but the problem with that is because of the guy's forward momentum you'll more than likely just end up bouncing off.

I also like to incorporate Northern Shaolin techniques into my WC. An example is that when some dude tries to grab my waist/legs to take me down, I bring whichever leg is forward back and shift into a reverse bow/archer stance and then spring back forward not unlike Tai Chi. It sounds silly but it's worked every time.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I also like to incorporate Northern Shaolin techniques into my WC. An example is that when some dude tries to grab my waist/legs to take me down, I bring whichever leg is forward back and shift into a reverse bow/archer stance and then spring back forward not unlike Tai Chi. It sounds silly but it's worked every time.



As always it is sometimes difficult to imagine the 'incorporated technique' you describe...but IMO if one knows WC, there are options contained within the forms without the need to incorporate anything. For example, the footwork Marnetmar mentions (if I am picturing it correctly per his description) seems very similar to how one can use concepts contained in pole form to mitigate attempted takedowns, etc. 

Good post Geezer!


----------



## Danny T (Jul 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> ... ending up on the ground is often a reality you have to deal with in a fight. So how does your WC address this possibility? What techniques and strategies do you employ to recover?



The question, as I understand it, is that I 'have ended up on the ground' so how does my WC address this not how does my WC address preventing going to the ground.
1. it is situational based. What position am I in, Where is my opponent in relation to me? 
2. what pressure is being applied and how?

In order to move on the ground you must be angled on one side or the other. Using the principle of Facing and the side facing stance (Jut Sun Ma) I would shift to either side that allows me to face toward my opponent and move to create distance and move as soon as possible to a Say Ping Dai Ma stance transitioning to my regular stance. As to how and when again is all depends on what the opponent is doing. 

In our training we get on the ground and work against a number of different positions as well as vs different takedowns and throws.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jul 23, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> As always it is sometimes difficult to imagine the 'incorporated technique' you describe...but IMO if one knows WC, there are options contained within the forms without the need to incorporate anything. For example, the footwork Marnetmar mentions (if I am picturing it correctly per his description) seems very similar to how one can use concepts contained in pole form to mitigate attempted takedowns, etc.
> 
> Good post Geezer!



And this could be! See, I haven't learned the pole form yet so I'm a bit in the dark on this stuff.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> Whether you get knocked down, taken down, or just slip and fall down, ending up on the ground is often a reality you have to deal with in a fight. So how does your WC address this possibility? What techniques and strategies do you employ to recover?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an important question. I share some thoughts. A well developed wing chun structure, stance  and sense of timing can help you avoid such a situation and allow you to roll over, get up and counter attack.
However you can end up on the ground specially with multiple attackers.
When you (generic -you) do enough wing chun you shape your body and your reactions  in a way that you protect  your mother line , control your motions
and use or create open lines . You have two hands and two legs- use them all. Together with chum kiu turns  and biu jee manipulations- you can throw people off you.
You can control yor and their center of gravity.. even when you are face down. I don't depend on memorized techniques.

Even now I demonstrate these things to students.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 23, 2014)

I think at a bare minimum you need to know how to do a bridge and roll , you can mess around trying to Biu Jee people in the throat and eyes when they have you mounted , but it is a lot faster to just bridge and roll.

As a bonus the Wing Chun arm grab counters still work on the ground and they can even be used with the bridge and roll.

I see weird stuff like people doing chi sau while locked between someone's legs and it is just stupid .
The grapplers have already invented the wheel , we don't have to try and invent it again.
Just have a working knowledge of the basic escapes and then modify them so instead of looking for submissions you are looking to strike where ever possible and then get up tactically to your feet.

In the other case where you are down and he is standing , the stamp kicks , side kicks and hook kicks work great from the ground.
Also good to have a few leg lock takedowns to , in case they get past your kicking defences.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> And this could be! See, I haven't learned the pole form yet so I'm a bit in the dark on this stuff.



Well then, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this topic once you have learned the pole form and its applications! Thanks again for the good conversation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 23, 2014)

One school I trained at had a kind of Ground technique, But it was more like a getting off the ground technique that basically was kicking the guy in the legs to back him up or break his knees. I did not train it and I saw it trained only once.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> A well developed wing chun structure, stance  and sense of timing can help you avoid such a situation and allow you to roll over, get up and counter attack. *You have two hands and two legs- use them all.* Together with chum kiu turns  and biu jee manipulations- you can throw people off you.



Yes, absolutely!!! I agree 100%! Good Yip Man Wing Chun has lots of options once one dissects the forms, etc. Well said Joy!


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I think at a bare minimum you need to know how to do a bridge and roll , you can mess around trying to Biu Jee people in the throat and eyes when they have you mounted , but it is a lot faster to just bridge and roll.



apples to oranges Mook. One scenario damages, the other simply reverses the situation provided it was successful... just my opinion.



mook jong man said:


> As a bonus the Wing Chun arm grab counters still work on the ground. [In the other case where you are down and he is standing , the stamp kicks , side kicks and hook kicks work great from the ground. Also good to have a few leg lock takedowns to , in case they get past your kicking defences



Heck yeah!


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 23, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> apples to oranges Mook. One scenario damages, the other simply reverses the situation provided it was successful... just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Heck yeah!



If they know what they are doing , they are just waiting for you to extend your arms trying to reach for their throat or eyes and then they arm bar you.


In my bridge and roll , I roll them off and then roll straight on top of them with an elbow strike almost all in one motion.
I use the momentum from the roll to power the elbow strike.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> In my bridge and roll , I roll them off and then roll straight on top of them with an elbow strike almost all in one motion.
> I use the momentum from the roll to power the elbow strike.



Cool! A good skill to have in the toolbox! Thx.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 23, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That is an important question. I share some thoughts. A well developed wing chun structure, stance  and sense of timing can help you avoid such a situation and allow you to roll over, get up and counter attack.
> However you can end up on the ground specially with multiple attackers.
> When you (generic -you) do enough wing chun you shape your body and your reactions  in a way that you protect  your mother line , control your motions
> ...




Wish I read that before I posted because that is pretty much what I saw, and the guy teaching it and you share a sifu so maybe that is where it came from


----------



## geezer (Jul 23, 2014)

In my WT I view _anti-grappling_ as an method to escape and recover your structure in a stand-up, striking art as compared to straight up _grappling_ which seek the grappling range--clinch, throw, go to the ground and beat your opponent there. Personally when I was young I liked grappling and If I were a kid today, I'd probably be training grappling. It's got some great stuff, but it's not WC. We solve the same problems differently. I found the following video that compares and contrasts typical grappling responses with some "WT" branch anti-grappling. I've had some success with some of the stuff shown, at least against_ unskilled attackers_, for example:

Using your kicks to create distance on the ground- 0:28-0:44
Following up after using kicks, recovering to standing up position- 0:58-1:02
Using close kicks from your back to prevent a mount- 2:00-2:15






I have _not_ had success using stop-kicks and chain punches to stop somebody who really _knows _how to shoot-in effectively -- as supposedly shown here- 3:04-3:45
On the other hand, I _have_ accomplished this by keeping my legs back and moving back and aside while using chain punches, --or by head control with a gum-sau, and if the attacker still gets through, using a very un-WC (but effective) wrestler's sprawl! 



Also in addition to standing up as shown above (0:58-1:02) I have my students practice a simple stand-up as shown here:






OK, so it's labelled "BJJ". Sorry I couldn't find a similar clip of WC. But c'mon. Kicking from the ground and standing up is a _universal_ self-defense skill.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> and if the attacker still gets through, using a very un-WC (but effective) wrestler's sprawl!



I think we may have had this discussion before, but I consider the sprawl to be very much in line with WC principles as we are yielding to our opponent's force and using not just our arms but our whole body as a sort of jum sau or fook sau.

LT demo'd this very principle back around 1999 at one of the LA fighter camps.
He explained how "fook" means to_ control from on top, _not just with the arm, but the whole body can do this as well.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Jul 23, 2014)

yak sao said:


> I think we may have had this discussion before, but I consider the sprawl to be very much in line with WC principles as we are yielding to our opponent's force and using not just our arms but our whole body as a sort of jum sau or fook sau.
> 
> LT demo'd this very principle back around 1999 at one of the LA fighter camps.
> He explained how "fook" means to_ control from on top, _not just with the arm, but the whole body can do this as well.



I am in agreement with yak! Same goes for my WC.


----------



## geezer (Jul 24, 2014)

yak sao said:


> I think we may have had this discussion before, but I consider the sprawl to be very much in line with WC principles as we are yielding to our opponent's force and using not just our arms but our whole body as a sort of jum sau or fook sau.
> 
> LT demo'd this very principle back around 1999 at one of the LA fighter camps.
> He explained how "fook" means to_ control from on top, _not just with the arm, but the whole body can do this as well.



Did I say sprawl?  Of course I meant _full body jum-sau! _That's exactly what it is. Thanks for that, Yak.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2014)

yak sao said:


> I think we may have had this discussion before, but I consider the sprawl to be very much in line with WC principles as we are yielding to our opponent's force and using not just our arms but our whole body as a sort of jum sau or fook sau.
> 
> LT demo'd this very principle back around 1999 at one of the LA fighter camps.
> He explained how "fook" means to_ control from on top, _not just with the arm, but the whole body can do this as well.




See I still don't get this. Why does it make a difference if it is in line with WC principles or not?

Considering the double leg is probably not in line with wc .


----------



## yak sao (Jul 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> See I still don't get this. Why does it make a difference if it is in line with WC principles or not?
> 
> Considering the double leg is probably not in line with wc .




WC is not a style of fighting. It is a system of interconnected principles that are there to guide your body into methods of dissolving your opponent's force and also for delivering your own force into your attacks. The forms, the chi sau, etc. are there to teach you how to do this in the most economical, streamlined, efficient way.

To be truly efficient, a WC fighter should be trying to strip away as much as possible, so that only the least amount of energy, movement etc are used. As you become more and more adept at this, the WC fighter's movements are quite fluid and natural, not contrived in any way.

If you try to cherry pick and use this technique from this style and another technique from another style, you are left with a bunch of mismatched, disjointed movements and you are no longer moving in a fluid natural way.....that's why it's important.


----------



## KPM (Jul 24, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Yes, absolutely!!! I agree 100%! Good Yip Man Wing Chun has lots of options once one dissects the forms, etc. Well said Joy!



If you have never trained for ground-fighting, then certainly apply whatever you have learned from Wing Chun in any way you can on the ground!  But if you are really concerned about ground-fighting, don't rely on this.   Wing Chun was not designed to be used on the ground.   It will never measure up to a method that WAS purposefully designed for ground-fighting like BJJ, Harimau, Buah, etc.  I say do the best with what you have, but don't be afraid to expand your training into other ranges.  One wouldn't try to hunt a grizzly bear with a 9mm handgun or sail around the world in a row boat.  The right tool at the right time is the best approach.   You can get by with a tool that has been adapted, but it may not get optimal results.  At least that's my 2 cents.


----------



## geezer (Jul 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> See I still don't get this. Why does it make a difference if it is in line with WC principles or not?
> 
> Considering the double leg is probably not in line with wc .



_Drop:_ Consider what Yak said above. Wing Chun is a _system_ where all the parts reinforce each other like clockwork. Think of a well designed car, for example. If you have a great sports car but it can't go off-road, you don't just bolt on parts from your Jeep to solve the problem. Each is designed for a different purpose. Same for WC and BJJ. So, the best solution is to buy both a sports car and a solid 4X4. ...or train WC _and_ a grappling art. Use each as you need to. Just don't mix them together!


----------



## geezer (Jul 24, 2014)

KPM said:


> If you have never trained for ground-fighting, then certainly apply whatever you have learned from Wing Chun in any way you can on the ground!  But if you are really concerned about ground-fighting, don't rely on this.   Wing Chun was not designed to be used on the ground.   It will never measure up to a method that WAS purposefully designed for ground-fighting...



Agreed. That's why a WC stylist who hasn't trained in a ground fighting system should know his limitations and vulnerabilities, and consider "anti-grappling" as strictly an emergency method designed to a. prevent a grappler from easily closing and taking you to the ground, and b. help you to quickly escape and recover to your WC range. Applied in this way, "anti-grappling" can help you against an in-expert grappler. 

Similarly, grapplers train what amounts to "anti-striking" to close on a boxer or other striker. Such techniques won't equal an expert striker's skills at the striking range, but they serve their purpose.

KPM: The problem with "anti-anything" is that it's sometimes used to cover up the limitations that any system has. Better to be honest with yourself about what you can and cannot do. You know, Sun Tzu's "Know your enemy and know yourself..." I think we agree that the ideal would be to be skilled at both arts. I know I would like that. I'd also like to be taller, younger, smarter and incredibly ripped. -LOL


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> _Drop:_ Consider what Yak said above. Wing Chun is a _system_ where all the parts reinforce each other like clockwork. Think of a well designed car, for example. If you have a great sports car but it can't go off-road, you don't just bolt on parts from your Jeep to solve the problem. Each is designed for a different purpose. Same for WC and BJJ. So, the best solution is to buy both a sports car and a solid 4X4. ...or train WC _and_ a grappling art. Use each as you need to. Just don't mix them together!



See let's look at that analogy. It feels like you have a sports car. Then you need to go off road and deciding the best vehicle has to be in line with the principles of a sports car. Rather than just using the tool for the job.

Training both would make more sense. By the way.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 24, 2014)

Could just by a Porsche Cayenne


----------



## geezer (Jul 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> See let's look at that analogy. It feels like you have a sports car. Then you need to go off road and deciding the best vehicle has to be in line with the principles of a sports car. Rather than just using the tool for the job.
> 
> *Training both would make more sense.* By the way.



Right, _Drop_. Cross-training would be the way to go. What I'm trying to explain is why you don't want to blend two arts with contradictory methodologies _at the same range_. For example, train both, but keep to WC at the striking range, and use grappling in the clinch or on the ground.

You see, the problem comes when people try to combine arts with contrary stances, methods of power generation, and so forth. If you train two contradictory ways to deal with the identical situation, you have to _decide_ which approach to take. In other words, you can't just react instinctively. This isn't just a WC problem. It's something everybody who trains multiple arts has to resolve.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> Right, _Drop_. Cross-training would be the way to go. What I'm trying to explain is why you don't want to blend two arts with contradictory methodologies _at the same range_. For example, train both, but keep to WC at the striking range, and use grappling in the clinch or on the ground.
> 
> You see, the problem comes when people try to combine arts with contrary stances, methods of power generation, and so forth. If you train two contradictory ways to deal with the identical situation, you have to _decide_ which approach to take. In other words, you can't just react instinctively. This isn't just a WC problem. It's something everybody who trains multiple arts has to resolve.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting but frequwbr topic.

Mine is probably a minority opinion. I agree that it is best not to go to the ground voluntarily. However;
I dont need to learn bjj or something else. I work on making sure that my stance and hands  are  solid but springy
and the footwork decisive. I dont sew on a Frankenstein creation. I try to cut through someone's attempt  to dive for me.
I work on making sure that no one holds me long enough to throw me. I move or moving  decisively- not just standing still.
On the ground I still use wing chun body coordination.

Seems to work for me, my best students and my kung fu bros. I am not being arrogant.Perhaps different...but I think traditional.
If cross training is needed by someone- so be it. The sprawl can help in some situations- but a strong grappler can overturn
you while you are sprawling.

Of course training and trying things out is important.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Interesting but frequwbr topic.
> 
> ...




I agree with this, for pure pragmatism if nothing else. 

I don't have time to cross train. Because of work, family, household responsibilities etc, I have a limited amount of time. Add to that the fact that I'm not exactly a spring chicken anymore and don't need to be rolling around on the floor having my joints twisted and bent into positions they were never intended for.

I still believe that for personal protection you are better off going into a self defense situation knowing that what you are going to do will have as few variables as possible. My time is better spent developing my stance, footwork, striking, kicking and arm structures so that they will work when put to the test.

Is a few hours a week spent wrestling and grappling going to help me against someone who is truly an expert grappler? I would say no, so why spend time learning how to fight their fight. WCs strength lies in its ability to dissolve/redirect force and attack very quickly and forcefully from a very short range. Better I get good at a select skill set rather than bouncing all over the place chasing butterflies.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2014)

geezer said:


> -training would be the way to go. What I'm trying to explain is why you don't want to blend two arts with contradictory methodologies _at the same range_. For example, train both, but keep to WC at the striking range, and use grappling in the clinch or on the ground.
> 
> You see, the problem comes when people try to combine arts with contrary stances, methods of power generation, and so forth. If you train two contradictory ways to deal with the identical situation, you have to _decide_ which approach to take. In other words, you can't just react instinctively. This isn't just a WC problem. It's something everybody who trains multiple arts has to resolve.



Yeah that is kind of why I jumped in because that integration is pretty much what we do.

So then the sprawl should not matter whether it is WC or not. It is taken from a different system for a different set of circumstances and would not be done with WC principles. Or if it does then only coincidentally.

Or you defend with WC principles and try to strike out which to be honest is low percentage against that sort of attack.

Now I could see why you would choose a defence that puts you back in that striking range over one that doesn't. But the I suppose you are becoming hybrid.

Which is getting complicated. So instead of doing a bjj butflop and fighting off you back you would do a mma cross face stay standing disengage and strike.

So instead of trying to keep a set of principles and create a cringe worthy defence.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6c8SAHJ7C6U

Or just abandon WC all together and bjj your way out. Hitting a jump guard or guillotine.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNWhwB8ftg

You find a set of principles that work that can then put you back in the zone to fight from.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTHZ2prVq4

By the way on that last vid he is not trapping the hand the hand is blocking the takedown.


----------



## KPM (Jul 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> KPM: The problem with "anti-anything" is that it's sometimes used to cover up the limitations that any system has. Better to be honest with yourself about what you can and cannot do. You know, Sun Tzu's "Know your enemy and know yourself..." I think we agree that the ideal would be to be skilled at both arts. I know I would like that. I'd also like to be taller, younger, smarter and incredibly ripped. -LOL



Absolutely!  And we'd all like to have a million dollars in the bank!     As far as training...there are only so many hours in the day.   For those of us that work for a living that kind of limits what we can get good at.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 25, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Is a few hours a week spent wrestling and grappling going to help me against someone who is truly an expert grappler? I would say no, so why spend time learning how to fight their fight. WCs strength lies in its ability to dissolve/redirect force and attack very quickly and forcefully from a very short range. Better I get good at a select skill set rather than bouncing all over the place chasing butterflies.



The good news is that if you ever end up going to the ground in a street situation you probably won't be facing an expert grappler. More likely either you slipped or a big guy tackled you from the side when you weren't expecting it or something like that. It doesn't take long to learn the fundamentals of how to protect yourself on the ground and get back to your feet safely. I could teach you the basics in a few weeks and have you pretty good at it within 6 months. Against most opponents that's all the ground-fighting skill you would ever need.


----------



## geezer (Jul 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> ...So instead of doing a bjj butflop and fighting off you back you would do a mma cross face stay standing disengage and strike.
> 
> So instead of trying to keep a set of principles and create a *cringe worthy* defence.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6c8SAHJ7C6U



Cringeworthy indeed! First, the  idea that you can reliably  just _punch _your way out of a decent shoot when you factor in momentum and real intent to suck up your legs, drive through and dump your head hard on the pavement _(cringe)._ Second, those red silk pajamas (cringe). And last, check out those blond streaks in his hair at around 0:42 _(cringe and shudder!)_.

Ironically, I met and worked with this guy (Michael Casey) at a  Rene Latosa Escrima seminar many years ago. In fact he is fit, tough and a gifted martial artist who could easily kick my butt. And he was just wearing normal sweats that day (thank god). I guess it just goes to show that even good guys post some dubious stuff on youtube. 





drop bear said:


> You find a set of principles that work that can then put you back in the zone to fight from.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTHZ2prVq4
> By the way on that last vid he is not trapping the hand the hand is blocking the takedown.



Ok, I'm not a big Obasi fan, but this is a lot closer to a practical solution. Really, if you are not a great grappler, your best bet is something really simple like a sprawl and cross-face, rotate around behind, then go back to WC mode and punch the heck out of him.

Incidentally, I don't see that as violating my WC principles. But then I may have a broader perspective on that than some. Good videoclips, _Drop!_


----------



## yak sao (Jul 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The good news is that if you ever end up going to the ground in a street situation you probably won't be facing an expert grappler. More likely either you slipped or a big guy tackled you from the side when you weren't expecting it or something like that. .



True. We don't have to worry about the Gracies of the world...they're generally not going around starting trouble in bars.






Tony Dismukes said:


> It doesn't take long to learn the fundamentals of how to protect yourself on the ground and get back to your feet safely. I could teach you the basics in a few weeks and have you pretty good at it within 6 months. Against most opponents that's all the ground-fighting skill you would ever need.



I do try to work my WT against skilled grapplers when I can. I have a couple of buddies who are BJJ guys, one who is a catch wrestler and one an old wrestler from high school...they keep you honest.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 26, 2014)

yak sao said:


> I do try to work my WT against skilled grapplers when I can. I have a couple of buddies who are BJJ guys, one who is a catch wrestler and one an old wrestler from high school...they keep you honest.



That is the key.  Working with people that are skilled at grappling.  That way you know what your practicing will work through trial and error.  Way to often I see someone theorize how to defeat a takedown and quite frankly they have no clue.  There is a lot more to a double leg takedown than just shooting in.  There is of course controlling the distance, catching the opponent when their balance is on their heel, etc.  Lots of different ways to set it up.  You need to work with skilled grapplers and learn from them so that you can develop your skill sets against grappling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That is the key.  Working with people that are skilled at grappling.  That way you know what your practicing will work through trial and error.  Way to often I see someone theorize how to defeat a takedown and quite frankly they have no clue.  There is a lot more to a double leg takedown than just shooting in.  There is of course controlling the distance, catching the opponent when their balance is on their heel, etc.  Lots of different ways to set it up.  You need to work with skilled grapplers and learn from them so that you can develop your skill sets against grappling.



Agree 100% there. This discussion should not be just "WC vs. grappling". It should be a general discussion such as "striking vs. grappling" instead.

When you deal with a grappler, it's more than just the "single leg" and "double legs" that you should worry about. You should worry about:

- arm wrapping,
- under hook,
- over hook, 
- head lock,
- bear hug,
- waist surrounding,
- ... 

If you don't train in those areas, you will never be able to deal with any good grappler effectively. 

For example, If you want to deal with "arm wrapping", you need to train

- How to prevent it from happening?
- After it happened, how to take advantage on it?
- ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> Cringeworthy indeed! First, the  idea that you can reliably  just _punch _your way out of a decent shoot when you factor in momentum and real intent to suck up your legs, drive through and dump your head hard on the pavement _(cringe)._ Second, those red silk pajamas (cringe). And last, check out those blond streaks in his hair at around 0:42 _(cringe and shudder!)_.
> 
> Ironically, I met and worked with this guy (Michael Casey) at a  Rene Latosa Escrima seminar many years ago. In fact he is fit, tough and a gifted martial artist who could easily kick my butt. And he was just wearing normal sweats that day (thank god). I guess it just goes to show that even good guys post some dubious stuff on youtube.
> 
> ...


------------------------------------------------------------------------

not impressed with the videos


----------



## geezer (Jul 27, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> not impressed with the videos



I'm just a visual learner Joy. I always appreciate it when people include clips to illustrate what they are talking about.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> I'm just a visual learner Joy. I always appreciate it when people include clips to illustrate what they are talking about.


------------------------------------------------------------------
No problem. I was just commenting on the videos,
Visual and written text is good for me.
Audios -can be a problem.

The take down attempts in the videos did not seem serious enough. 
Also the wc guy was stationary. I would suggest attacking( not a fan of chain punching)
as the guy begins to move or even earlier- timing be an important key.

PS On 'chain punching'- 1-3 explosive punches are better. But against a takedown
balanced palms properly aimed  can do the job- if done right could break
the attckers neck if it is really a life threatening serious threat .


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> Cringeworthy indeed! First, the  idea that you can reliably  just _punch _your way out of a decent shoot when you factor in momentum and real intent to suck up your legs, drive through and dump your head hard on the pavement _(cringe)._ Second, those red silk pajamas (cringe). And last, check out those blond streaks in his hair at around 0:42 _(cringe and shudder!)_.
> 
> Ironically, I met and worked with this guy (Michael Casey) at a  Rene Latosa Escrima seminar many years ago. In fact he is fit, tough and a gifted martial artist who could easily kick my butt. And he was just wearing normal sweats that day (thank god). I guess it just goes to show that even good guys post some dubious stuff on youtube.
> 
> ...



I can never keep up with WC principles so I just give up and don't bother. Almost in general grappling principles arms down,low base,head up.don't mesh with striking ones. 

The thing with sprawl and cross face is the best fighters use it as well as the beginners and where a lot of tactics get nulled out by a skilled counter that is one that gets used pretty regularly. For us stating standing there is paramount.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 28, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> No problem. I was just commenting on the videos,
> Visual and written text is good for me.
> Audios -can be a problem.
> ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s.(specially geezer) If interested- you can go to the articles section of myweb site at< www.tempewingchun.com>
and click on articles .  See the JAMA article on chum kiu-mobility and stability.
Photos 2a and 2b- gives a sample of my approach to a grappling attack.My partner and student
Josh Santobianco  is an All American
Greco roman grappler in addition to being an Army Ranger etc.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 28, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> To avoid takedowns, my school actually likes to practice W.C a couple inches closer in than typical W.C range, and it actually helps to neutralize a lot of that. I know a lot of people have the "if he tries to throw you down, chop him in the back of the neck" mentality, but the problem with that is because of the guy's forward momentum you'll more than likely just end up bouncing off.
> 
> I also like to incorporate Northern Shaolin techniques into my WC. An example is that when some dude tries to grab my waist/legs to take me down, I bring whichever leg is forward back and shift into a reverse bow/archer stance and then spring back forward not unlike Tai Chi. It sounds silly but it's worked every time.



Not sure if that would work against the Gracies. Interesting to try it against them.


----------



## geezer (Jul 28, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Not sure if that would work *against the Gracies.* Interesting to try it against them.



I assume you mean "against a BJJ approach" and not the Gracies in person! ...But in general, I agree with the idea of testing your stuff against a competent and resisting opponent.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> I assume you mean "against a BJJ approach" and not the Gracies in person! ...But in general, I agree with the idea of testing your stuff against a competent and resisting opponent.




Just so people know getting close and throwing long chains of strikes helps a grappler. Because you go into their range and are moving your hands away from where they can defend.

But of course if you are breaking peoples necks with palm strikes the risk is less.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Just so people know getting close and throwing long chains of strikes helps a grappler. Because you go into their range and are moving your hands away from where they can defend.



If you would amend that to read, "getting close and throwing long chains of weak and ineffectual strikes..." I'd agree.  On the other hand, _if your strikes are strong and effective _the equation changes.

--Another thing, the elbow-low position of the WC guard and punches can be quickly adapted to a defense against a shoot in the hands of an able practitioner who is also versed in grappling. The pictures Joy referenced above on his website give an idea of this.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2014)

geezer said:


> If you would amend that to read, "getting close and throwing long chains of weak and ineffectual strikes..." I'd agree.  On the other hand, _if your strikes are strong and effective_  ...well you get my drift.



Look if your strikes are hitting the guy in the head and messing him up then yes. But if they are pinging of their guard or they have a really good chin. You need to stop back off and reset if you want to stay on your feet.

So not only do your punches have to have some juice in them they have to be hitting the target and doing damage. And this is reliant on how good the other guys defence is.
Wrestling.

Hands low body dropped head up.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2014)

Striking.

Hands up body up. And in theory head down.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Just so people know getting close and throwing long chains of strikes helps a grappler.


Agree! Your punches will expose your "centerline" to your opponent.

Here is an example:


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Your punches will expose your "centerline" to your opponent.
> 
> Here is an example:



If you throw punches like that it will.
People seem to be under the misconception that chain punches are just used to try and batter their way through a guard , which unfortunately is what you mostly see on YouTube.

But they are a lot more sophisticated than that in the hands of a skilled practitioner , a skilled practitioner will also use wrist latching to drag any type of guard down.
One hand strikes while the other hand wrist latches , this can be done continuously with either hand.

So in your video a skilled practitioner would have already realized that his first strike would have bounced off your guard and used that bridge to drag your guard down and hit you with the other hand.

Its also worth noting that because the strikes are so compact and economical that they can be dropped down pretty quickly to press down and control someone's head if they have to.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Your punches will expose your "centerline" to your opponent.
> 
> Here is an example:



John, this "rhino" or "big fist" thing just seems to me to have too many vulnerabilities when used against an adaptable fighter. Several times you've posted regarding how advantageous it is to grab and gain control of your opponent's wrists. Well, this "big fist" strategy seems like it's virtually offering your wrists up for a grab. 

Now maybe a boxer won't take advantage of that. But a good all-round fighter will. So will a good WC guy. Lop, jut, pak --whatever. That big cumbersome "rhino" structure could be deflected, i.e. knocked or pressed aside in any direction disrupting your body structure and leaving a big opening. --Basically what_ Mook _said.

Another thing, normally I'm not a big fan of _"gunting"_ or limb-destructions, but  if someone presented me with that "big fist", I'd be sorely tempted, especially if I was holding something hard like my keys, a strong pen, cell phone, wireless mouse, stapler, salt-shaker, ashtray, cue-ball, glass, bottle, or rock, etc. You could sure do a number on that "big fist", including the fingers, knuckles, wrists, forearms, and elbows! But hey, we weren't talking _Eskrima_. We were talking WC. In fact, I believe this thread was about _using WC after ending up on the ground_. Amazing how we get off-topic! (hint-hint)


----------

