# Tai Chi rooting vs takedowns...



## TMA17

I came across these videos and wasn’t sure how real they were.  Many Kung Fu stances, such as Hung Gar and Tai Chi really root you to the ground.  Are these stances that resistant to takedowns?


----------



## Xue Sheng

I talked with a Chen style guy a few years ago who went to try out an MMA gym and he was having a blast. He said he had never had to deal with that much force coming at him at that speed before and that the MMA guys had never had to deal with someone who was so relaxed and rooted. He was learning a lot and the MMA guys that were learning how to deal with his relaxation and root.

I have not gone toe to toe with a Judo or MMA guy but I can say from experience that many of the demos I have been at for other arts, that they have a real issue with the relaxation of taijiquan. Been told many times that I can't relax like that. Problem is it is automatic and has been for a long time. However with that said, was once at a "Fumio Demura" seminar years ago and I was working with a partner on a takedown and he kept having issues. I tried not to relax, but neither of us were getting anyplace. He asked Mr Demura what to do and explained the situation. Mr Demura then tried the same thing on me....and threw me on the floor. Said relaxed or not relaxed made no difference. Been on the floor many times due to my taiji shifu's response to something I was doing too.


----------



## drop bear

As compared to what?

Grapplers have takedown defence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TMA17 said:


> Are these stances that resistant to takedowns?


It's not the stance that can help you to resist take down. It's the "body vibration ability" that does. It's hard to grab on a live fish because it vibrates. It's hard to take down someone if his body vibrates just enough to cancel your force.

Next time if someone says that he has strong rooting, you can use this "elephant nose embracing" on him. The harder that you use your forearm to strike up his groin, the higher that he will jump up. It doesn't matter what stance that he may be in.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not the stance that can help you to resist take down. It's the "body vibration ability" that does. It's hard to grab on a live fish because it vibrates. It's hard to take down someone if his body vibrates just enough to cancel your force.
> 
> Next time if someone says that he has strong rooting, you can use this "elephant nose embracing" on him. The harder that you use your forearm to strike up his groin, the higher that he will jump up. It doesn't matter what stance that he may be in.


Sooo hit him in the nuts?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Sooo hit him in the nuts?



Well a lot of defence to judo style throws is having hips lower than the other guy. Nut shot would prevent that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

kempodisciple said:


> Sooo hit him in the nuts?


This is why I don't like wrestling only sport when kick and punch are not allowed. One may develop bad habit and doesn't have enough alert to the head punch.


----------



## Anarax

TMA17 said:


> I came across these videos and wasn’t sure how real they were.  Many Kung Fu stances, such as Hung Gar and Tai Chi really root you to the ground.  Are these stances that resistant to takedowns?



The Tai Chi guys looks to be very relaxed and are holding a good stance. However; it looks like the Judo guys aren't trying very hard, this could be from a prior arrangement before hand, or them not wanting to for their own reasons. Overall, the videos seem to have a biased feel to them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Anarax said:


> The Tai Chi guys looks to be very relaxed and are holding a good stance. However; it looks like the Judo guys aren't trying very hard, this could be from a prior arrangement before hand, or them not wanting to for their own reasons. Overall, the videos seem to have a biased feel to them.


That's not what I got from it. In the first video, the guy wasn't exactly aggressive, but it didn't seem like he was going easy, more like it was just a friendly match. In the second one, the guy looked serious, but it is very tough to deal with a low wide stance like that in grappling, especially if it's not something that you're used to.


----------



## Anarax

kempodisciple said:


> That's not what I got from it. In the first video, the guy wasn't exactly aggressive, but it didn't seem like he was going easy, more like it was just a friendly match. In the second one, the guy looked serious, but it is very tough to deal with a low wide stance like that in grappling, especially if it's not something that you're used to.



It's poor representation any way you cut it. Having the Tai Chi practitioner "proving" something against an uncommitted opponent from another discipline "proves" nothing. The first video is only in french, thus I'm going off what I see. There's clearly a bias judging by the video titles and the question the Tai Chi practioner asks "which is stronger judo or taiji?". The camera crew meeting with the Tai Chi practitioner first then going to the Judo school shows bias as well. The second video is shot in China and they are trying to prove how much "stronger "Tai Chi" is than Judo, questionable objectivity to say the least.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> That's not what I got from it. In the first video, the guy wasn't exactly aggressive, but it didn't seem like he was going easy, more like it was just a friendly match. In the second one, the guy looked serious, but it is very tough to deal with a low wide stance like that in grappling, especially if it's not something that you're used to.



The first video he was being toyed with. Especially on the ground.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

First video is Tai Chi vs BJJ, not Judo. The Tai Chi guy demonstrated some legit skills standing, but he was just outclassed. He got taken down fairly easily, but by someone who was both highly skilled and much younger and more athletic. Once on the ground, he was more out of his element and the BJJ guy could have submitted him easily, but was being friendly and was content to just stay on top.

The second video I think was a bit of a setup by prior arrangement, although you need some experience to see it. The Tai Chi guy had a good base, but no more so than an equivalently skilled Judo practitioner. The Judo player seemed to go for some legitimate throws, but he didn't set them up the way he would in competition. He voluntarily went for a no-gi style clinch rather than taking grips on his opponents uniform as would be normal in Judo competition. He didn't use grip fighting, feints, combinations, or proper kuzushi to setup the opening for a throw the way you have to against an opponent who has a good base and is being completely defensive the way the Tai Chi practitioner was.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> The first video he was being toyed with. Especially on the ground.


Yeah, but the other guy wasn't 'going easy' on him


----------



## dunc

In both videos the TC guys had good base

In the 1st video the grappler didn't deal with the grab around his neck which would have put him on top with a big advantage. The grip being used is relatively easy to release - I don't know why he didn't take that opportunity

The 2nd video was a good example of asymmetric objectives. The TC guy wasn't trying to throw, it looked to me like he was stalling while the judo player tried to throw him - which gives the advantage to the TC guy

Good videos 'though


----------



## Tony Dismukes

dunc said:


> In the 1st video the grappler didn't deal with the grab around his neck which would have put him on top with a big advantage. The grip being used is relatively easy to release - I don't know why he didn't take that opportunity



He was being nice to a guy who was significantly older and not experienced on the ground. Most of the ways to force a quick release against an opponent who is stubbornly holding on to the neck involve inflicting some discomfort. He was in no danger from the neck grab, so he choose to just chill on top rather than force the issue. Sometimes when I'm in the same position, I'll wait and let the other person figure out that the grab gives them no advantage other than stalling and see if they release it on their own before I force a release.


kempodisciple said:


> Yeah, but the other guy wasn't 'going easy' on him



Trust me, the BJJ guy was taking it very easy on him. He could have been a lot meaner once it went to the ground.


----------



## TMA17

Good points, I agree.  I guess I would say that while they could have taken him down, it’s probably harder to take down a TC guy or anyone with a more rooted stance than someone with no root at all.  ?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> He was being nice to a guy who was significantly older and not experienced on the ground. Most of the ways to force a quick release against an opponent who is stubbornly holding on to the neck involve inflicting some discomfort. He was in no danger from the neck grab, so he choose to just chill on top rather than force the issue. Sometimes when I'm in the same position, I'll wait and let the other person figure out that the grab gives them no advantage other than stalling and see if they release it on their own before I force a release.
> 
> 
> Trust me, the BJJ guy was taking it very easy on him. He could have been a lot meaner once it went to the ground.


I don't mean easy in the sense that he was taking it light. I mean it in the sense that he was making sure he was in no real danger the entire time. He never gave the talki guy anything to make him look better.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

kempodisciple said:


> I don't mean easy in the sense that he was taking it light. I mean it in the sense that he was making sure he was in no real danger the entire time. He never gave the talki guy anything to make him look better.


I can agree with that. On the other hand, the Tai Chi practitioner was being pretty defensive the whole time (other than one attempt at a reversal), so it's not like the BJJ guy had to do a whole lot to keep himself safe.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> the Tai Chi practitioner was being pretty defensive the whole time (other than one attempt at a reversal), so it's not like the BJJ guy had to do a whole lot to keep himself safe.


A famous Chinese wrestling instructor made a public statement that if anybody could take him down just once, he would give that person a black belt in Chinese wrestling. If you have good wrestling skill and play 100% defense, it will be very difficult for anybody to take you down. This is why in Chinese wrestling, people will

- respect you by playing offense and fail (For example, you move in with a hip throw, your opponent drags you down).
- look down on you by playing defense and win (For example, your opponent moves in with a hip throw, you drag him down).

The reason is simple. The person who uses hip throw, he will be good at it someday. The person who uses hip throw counter, he will never be able to develop hip throw.

If you try to wait for a Taiji guy to make a move, that will never happen. IMO, the best way to deal with a 100% defensive Taiji guy is to drag his arm and run in circle. It doesn't matter what his respond may be, as long as he starts to shift weight from one leg to another. You can then take advantage on it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why in Chinese wrestling, people will
> 
> - respect you by playing offense and fail (For example, you move in with a hip throw, your opponent drags you down).
> - look down on you by playing defense and win (For example, your opponent moves in with a hip throw, you drag him down).
> 
> The reason is simple. The person who uses hip throw, he will be good at it someday. The person who uses hip throw counter, he will never be able to develop hip throw.


Yep. When I'm teaching takedowns I have to emphasize that I'd rather see a student try for a throw ten times and get reversed every time than to just play defense and stay on their feet the whole time. You learn by trying and failing (and eventually succeeding). You don't learn by just hanging back and playing it safe.

This is one reason why Judo classes spend so much time on ukemi (falling). If a student doesn't feel comfortable taking a fall, they'll be afraid to attack and thereby expose themselves to a counter-throw.

(It's also why wrestling and Judo competition both have penalties for stalling - if both parties play it too safe nothing will ever happen.)


----------



## Xue Sheng




----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's also why wrestling and Judo competition both have penalties for stalling - if both parties play it too safe nothing will ever happen.


Many years ago, there was a national level Chinese wrestling tournament in Taiwan. During the championship fight, both persons played defense. Neither person was willing to attack. My teacher was the chief judge in that tournament. He made both persons disqualified. The 3rd place then became the 1st place. The 4th place also became the 2nd place. It cause a big argument for a long time.

IMO, if one is afraid to take the risk, MA is not for that person.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, there was a national level Chinese wrestling tournament in Taiwan. During the championship fight, both persons played defense. Neither person was willing to attack. My teacher was the chief judge in that tournament. He made both persons disqualified. The 3rd place then became the 1st place. The 4th place also became the 2nd place. It cause a big argument for a long time.
> 
> IMO, if one is afraid to take the risk, MA is not for that person.


That could be a viable strategy for self defense.  Winning the fight doesn’t matter.   Getting home safe does.  Deflecting attacks until an opportunity to escape presents counts as a win, in that case.

In competition, that’s different.  Something needs to happen to advance the encounter.  It’s a different set of goals.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> That could be a viable strategy for self defense.  Winning the fight doesn’t matter.   Getting home safe does.  Deflecting attacks until an opportunity to escape presents counts as a win, in that case.


Self-defense is more than just to defend yourself. If you are alone, you can play 100% defense.

- block all the kicks and punches (test your defense skill),
- run away if you can (test your running speed).

When you have to defend your love one, friend, or a stranger, you don't have that luxury.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> That could be a viable strategy for self defense.  Winning the fight doesn’t matter.   Getting home safe does.  Deflecting attacks until an opportunity to escape presents counts as a win, in that case.
> 
> In competition, that’s different.  Something needs to happen to advance the encounter.  It’s a different set of goals.



Striking changes the dynamics of that though.


----------



## Anarax

While rewatching the videos I noticed the Tai Chi guys had shoes on, while the bjj and judo guys were barefoot. Having shoes helps to grip the mats and aids in stability. Though that wasn't the deciding factor in the outcomes, it definitely played a factor.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Note: Chinese martial arts tends to train with shoes on.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Self-defense is more than just to defend yourself. If you are alone, you can play 100% defense.
> 
> - block all the kicks and punches (test your defense skill),
> - run away if you can (test your running speed).
> 
> When you have to defend your love one, friend, or a stranger, you don't have that luxury.


Sure, and we can “what if?” the thing to death.  That doesn’t change the fact that it can be a viable strategy.


----------



## Anarax

Xue Sheng said:


> Note: Chinese martial arts tends to train with shoes on.



The point is one had an advantage the other did not


----------



## Anarax

Having an opponent that isn't only defensive but refuses to engage is difficult regardless of any art. The point some people are making on here is that it's a lot easier to not get thrown if one is only focusing on not getting thrown. Which is a valid point, though there are other factors in the videos that played into the outcomes


----------



## Flying Crane

Anarax said:


> Having an opponent that isn't only defensive but refuses to engage is difficult regardless of any art. The point some people are making on here is that it's a lot easier to not get thrown if one is only focusing on not getting thrown. Which is a valid point, though there are other factors in the videos that played into the outcomes


Well, it is an aspect of not playing by the other guys rules.  Don’t play his game; play your own game.  And if the issue is self defense and not competition, then it’s a good approach to take.

In that case, it matters nothing if the encounter is stifled.  In fact, that can be the very point of self defense: prevent the bad guy from having his way with you.  You don’t need to engage and defeat him.  You just need to keep yourself safe.  If that means stifling the encounter until you can escape, then do it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If we look at this clip, the judo guy tries to attack the Taiji guy's leg by:

- sweep (1.55, 1.57),
- spring (1.56),
- cut (2.28, 2.32, 2.38).

At that moment, the Judo guy is standing on single leg. Through the entire match, the Taiji guy has both feet on the ground. The Judo guy has "leg skill". The Taiji guy has no "leg skill".

If the Taiji guy always plays defense only, he will never develop any "leg skill" through his entire life. As the throwing skill is concern, the Judo guy has good future. The Taiji guy has not.





[/QUOTE]


----------



## Anarax

Flying Crane said:


> Well, it is an aspect of not playing by the other guys rules.  Don’t play his game; play your own game.  And if the issue is self defense and not competition, then it’s a good approach to take.
> 
> In that case, it matters nothing if the encounter is stifled.  In fact, that can be the very point of self defense: prevent the bad guy from having his way with you.  You don’t need to engage and defeat him.  You just need to keep yourself safe.  If that means stifling the encounter until you can escape, then do it.



The context of the point is the video though. Having a style vs style video encounter is to demonstrate how one style fairs against the other, though that's rarely the outcome. The Tai Chi guys lowering themselves and not going for any techniques, in the context of the video, proves nothing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> The Tai Chi guys lowering themselves and not going for any techniques, ...


Judo is a throwing art system and has all kind of throwing techniques. What kind of throwing technique does Taiji have? If Taiji truly doesn't have throwing technique (besides "diagonal fly" - shoulder strike), may be we should not expect too much throwing technique out of a Taiji guy.

If Taiji can add in "leg skill" such as:

- leg scoop into Peng,
- leg spring into Lu.
- leg cut into Ji.
- leg hook into An,

Taiji Peng, Lu, Ji, An can be mapped into perfect throws. All throws require 2, or even 3 contact points. The issue is most Taiji skill only deal with 1 contact point. If one only thinks about 1 contact point, he can only push his opponent away. He can't throw his opponent down.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Flying Crane said:


> That could be a viable strategy for self defense. Winning the fight doesn’t matter. Getting home safe does. Deflecting attacks until an opportunity to escape presents counts as a win, in that case.


This can sometimes be a valid tactic in a self-defense context - especially if the situation allows the defender to keep retreating in order to avoid engagement.

It's not typically such a good idea in a _training_ context, even if you are training for self-defense, for a few reasons:


Part of developing a really good defense against a certain attack (whether it's striking or takedowns) is understanding and getting competent at the attack yourself. (Just as mastering an attack requires understanding the defenses against it.)
Even a defensive strategy is greatly bolstered by having an effective offense in your tool box. If an opponent has no cause to be concerned about your ability to do anything to him, he can commit 100% to his attack with no fear of repercussion.
Many self-defense scenarios do not allow the luxury of just retreating and defending the whole time. They occur suddenly at close range, with avenues for retreat blocked off. Even if you just want to get home safely you may have to hurt or take down your attacker long enough to make your escape.
There's a place in training for purely defensive and evasive drills, but they don't take away the need to practice offense as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

Anarax said:


> The context of the point is the video though. Having a style vs style video encounter is to demonstrate how one style fairs against the other, though that's rarely the outcome. The Tai Chi guys lowering themselves and not going for any techniques, in the context of the video, proves nothing.


Except that most taiji people, when it comes to application of the skills, do not enter competitions.  As much as a purely defensive tactic disrupts a competition, it is still a viable strategy and skill for a taiji guy.

The problem is in trying to compare skills between people with very different goals.  What is seen as bad play by one party is a good idea for the other.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> This can sometimes be a valid tactic in a self-defense context - especially if the situation allows the defender to keep retreating in order to avoid engagement.
> 
> It's not typically such a good idea in a _training_ context, even if you are training for self-defense, for a few reasons:
> 
> 
> Part of developing a really good defense against a certain attack (whether it's striking or takedowns) is understanding and getting competent at the attack yourself. (Just as mastering an attack requires understanding the defenses against it.)
> Even a defensive strategy is greatly bolstered by having an effective offense in your tool box. If an opponent has no cause to be concerned about your ability to do anything to him, he can commit 100% to his attack with no fear of repercussion.
> Many self-defense scenarios do not allow the luxury of just retreating and defending the whole time. They occur suddenly at close range, with avenues for retreat blocked off. Even if you just want to get home safely you may have to hurt or take down your attacker long enough to make your escape.
> There's a place in training for purely defensive and evasive drills, but they don't take away the need to practice offense as well.


I don’t disagree with you.  But I am pointing out that being able to nullify the attacks is a valuable and useful skill, depending on the situation and the goals of the participants.  It can work.


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Judo is a throwing art system and has all kind of throwing techniques. What kind of throwing technique does Taiji have? If Taiji truly doesn't have throwing technique (besides "diagonal fly" - shoulder strike), may be we should not expect too much throwing technique out of a Taiji guy.
> 
> If Taiji can add in "leg skill" such as:
> 
> - leg scoop into Peng,
> - leg spring into Lu.
> - leg cut into Ji.
> - leg hook into An,
> 
> Taiji Peng, Lu, Ji, An can be mapped into perfect throws. All throws require 2, or even 3 contact points. The issue is most Taiji skill only deal with 1 contact point. If one only thinks about 1 contact point, he can only push his opponent away. He can't throw his opponent down.



So you're saying they have throwing techniques but we shouldn't expect them to use the techniques? In the second video the the Tai Chi practitioner sought out the Judo practitioner. By his own words he's trying to prove which is "stronger." However; he's not able to do anything against the Judo practitioner. Imagine a Tai Chi practitioner entered an open martial arts competition with the intention of showing how "strong" Tai Chi is. He then proceeds to beat everyone thus "proving" his point. However; if he lost against everyone you can just fallback on "we shouldn't expect much" because of technique differences. I believe the Tai Chi practitioner's approach in the video is wrong. If he wants to show the applications of Tai Chi, the are more productive ways to go about it.


----------



## Anarax

Flying Crane said:


> Except that most taiji people, when it comes to application of the skills, do not enter competitions.  As much as a purely defensive tactic disrupts a competition, it is still a viable strategy and skill for a taiji guy.
> 
> The problem is in trying to compare skills between people with very different goals.  What is seen as bad play by one party is a good idea for the other.



Then why enter into a competition with a Judo guy and not showcase how "strong" your style is. If the Tai Chi practitioner's goal was to showcase his style, he chose an unproductive way to show it. If a Karate practitioner entered into a BJJ competition to showcase the power of Karate, he chose a poor means to do so. There's application in Tai Chi, but it's not demonstrated in the videos.


----------



## Flying Crane

Anarax said:


> Then why enter into a competition with a Judo guy and not showcase how "strong" your style is. If the Tai Chi practitioner's goal was to showcase his style, he chose an unproductive way to show it. If a Karate practitioner entered into a BJJ competition to showcase the power of Karate, he chose a poor means to do so. There's application in Tai Chi, but it's not demonstrated in the videos.


Well, what is wrong with showing that he can nullify an attack?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> So you're saying they have throwing techniques but we shouldn't expect them to use the techniques?


No! I believe Taiji has push. Taiji doesn't have throw. The concept of "throw" is not in Taiji's DNA. In order to apply a throw, you have to execute 2 forces in the opposite directions at the same time. Taiji just doesn't have such training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Except that most taiji people, when it comes to application of the skills, do not enter competitions.


Sometime you don't have to enter competition. The competition will come to you.

Many years ago a famous Taiji master (I won't mention his name here) had argument with a wrestler. The wrestler used bear hug to lift the Taiji master's body off the ground. The Taiji master didn't know how to get out of that situation.

Similar situation happened in Taiwan. One day in the park, a Bagua guy Bruce Frantzis asked a Taiji master the application of "needle at the bottom of the sea". Bruce suddenly got a bear hug on that Taiji master from behind. Bruce then asked that Taiji master, "What can you do now?" Since that Taiji master was also a Chinese wrestling master, he

- twisted his right leg on Bruce's left leg,
- made a circular hop with his left leg,
- lifted Bruce's left leg off the ground with his right leg,
- pulled Bruce's right shoulder back, 
- rotated Bruce's body to the right, and
- took Bruce down.

If a MA person cannot use his MA skill to solve the real world problem, his MA ability is useless.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime you don't have to enter competition. The competition will come to you.
> 
> Many years ago a famous Taiji master (I won't mention his name here) had argument with a wrestler. The wrestler used bear hug to lift the Taiji master's body off the ground. The Taiji master didn't know how to get out of that situation.
> 
> Similar situation happened in Taiwan. One day in the park, a Bagua guy Bruce Frantzis asked a Taiji master the application of "needle at the bottom of the sea". Bruce suddenly got a bear hug on that Taiji master from behind. Bruce then asked that Taiji master, "What can you do now?" Since that Taiji master was also a Chinese wrestling master, he
> 
> - twisted his right leg on Bruce's left leg,
> - made a circular hop with his left leg,
> - lifted Bruce's left leg off the ground with his right leg,
> - pulled Bruce's right shoulder back,
> - rotated Bruce's body to the right, and
> - took Bruce down.
> 
> If a MA person cannot use his MA skill to solve the real world problem, his MA ability is useless.


Why do you assume he cannot use it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Why do you assume he cannot use it?


You can't assume he can use it either. That clip shows he has defensive skill. That clip shows he has no offensive skill.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't assume he can use it either. That clip shows he has defensive skill. That clip shows he has no offensive skill.


The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No! I believe Taiji has push. Taiji doesn't have throw. The concept of "throw" is not in Taiji's DNA. In order to apply a throw, you have to execute 2 forces in the opposite directions at the same time. Taiji just doesn't have such training.



When I refer to throw I don't mean the conceptual energy "throw". To be more specific, a technique to take an opponent down. This include throwing, sweeping and takedown techniques. The Tai Chi style I studied had takedowns. Not all takedowns require 2 opposing forces to be executed by the practitioner.


----------



## Anarax

Flying Crane said:


> Well, what is wrong with showing that he can nullify an attack?



Tai Chi has so much more to offer than what he "demonstrated." Someone with basic grappling skills and only focused on takedown defense could've achieved the same thing. He proved nothing for Tai Chi.


----------



## Anarax

Flying Crane said:


> The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.



By that same logic I'll drill holes in my car to make it go faster. Is there evidence that says doing so will make it faster? No. But there's no evidence that states that it won't. I'll start believing in fairies, goblins and witches too. Again, no evidence refutes their existence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> When I refer to throw I don't mean the conceptual energy "throw". To be more specific, a technique to take an opponent down. This include throwing, sweeping and takedown techniques. The Tai Chi style I studied had takedowns. Not all takedowns require 2 opposing forces to be executed by the practitioner.


What you may call "energy throw", I'll call it "push".

Even the "foot sweep" will require you to

- sweep the leg up, and
- pull the shoulder down.

The Taiji "diagonal fly" will require you to

- push your opponent's upper body with your shoulder, and
- block his legs with your leading leg.

Of course you can twist your opponent's shoulders and take him down. That also require you to

- rotate one of your opponent's shoulder clockwise, and
- rotate his other shoulder counter-wise.

The follow picture shows "push".


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even the "foot sweep" will require you to
> 
> - sweep the leg up, and
> - pull the shoulder down.



There are trips which are just a sweep variants, you position yourself close to your opponent, take his balance, and essentially walk through his space taking him to the ground.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Taiji "diagonal fly" will require you to
> 
> - push your opponent's upper body with your shoulder, and
> - block his legs with your leading leg.



So you do or don't consider that opposing forces? I don't know if you're using this as an example for or against opposing forces.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course you can twist your opponent's shoulders and take him down. That also require you to
> 
> - rotate one of your opponent's shoulder clockwise, and
> - rotate his other shoulder counter-wise.



The only way for me to that is to break his torso in half and rotate the two halves independently. Meaning, both shoulders are going in the same direction, no opposing forces.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> both shoulders are going in the same direction, no opposing forces.


When apply twisting,  it can be considered as one hand push forward while another hand pull back.



Anarax said:


> There are trips which are just a sweep variants,


Many MA systems has "trip" that you use your leg to block your opponent's leg. The issue is your opponent can still step over your trip. If you hook your opponent's leg, it will be much more difficult for him to escape.

You can have:

1. 1 point push.
2. 2 points push and trip.
3. 2 points push and hook.

3 > 2 > 1

Here is an example of "push and hook".


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When apply twisting, it can be considered as one hand push forward while another hand pull back.


It's a circular motion, which are very prevalent in Tai Chi.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many MA systems has "trip" that you use your leg to block your opponent's leg. The issue is your opponent can still step over your trip. If you hook your opponent's leg, it will be much more difficult for him to escape.


This isn't about what's effective, it's a response to your opposing forces comment. I gave you an example of a takedown without opposing forces.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well a lot of defence to judo style throws is having hips lower than the other guy. Nut shot would prevent that.


Damned skippy. I'd stand up real straight if an elephant grabbed me like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> First video is Tai Chi vs BJJ, not Judo. The Tai Chi guy demonstrated some legit skills standing, but he was just outclassed. He got taken down fairly easily, but by someone who was both highly skilled and much younger and more athletic. Once on the ground, he was more out of his element and the BJJ guy could have submitted him easily, but was being friendly and was content to just stay on top.
> 
> The second video I think was a bit of a setup by prior arrangement, although you need some experience to see it. The Tai Chi guy had a good base, but no more so than an equivalently skilled Judo practitioner. The Judo player seemed to go for some legitimate throws, but he didn't set them up the way he would in competition. He voluntarily went for a no-gi style clinch rather than taking grips on his opponents uniform as would be normal in Judo competition. He didn't use grip fighting, feints, combinations, or proper kuzushi to setup the opening for a throw the way you have to against an opponent who has a good base and is being completely defensive the way the Tai Chi practitioner was.


Agreed. I saw a couple of places where a bit more commitment to the technique (reaping) would probably have off-balanced the Tai Chi guy, and places where feints likely would have opened up hip throws. And that Judo BB should be better at that than I am, so he must have been being very gentle. It's hard not to go gentler when you get someone you suspect doesn't know the falls (some of the throws I saw openings for are hard to fall from) and who is older. It wasn't an MMA competition, so he was just trying the easy entries to throws. That said, it's a good testament to the translation of Tai Chi rooting into resisting throws - it did take away all the easy throws that most non-grapplers are easily taken by.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> That could be a viable strategy for self defense.  Winning the fight doesn’t matter.   Getting home safe does.  Deflecting attacks until an opportunity to escape presents counts as a win, in that case.
> 
> In competition, that’s different.  Something needs to happen to advance the encounter.  It’s a different set of goals.


There's this duality in SD. When defending "in the street", we don't have to score, so we can afford to play defense. But we can't afford to keep giving them (or their friends, or well-meaning but ill-informed third parties) opportunities to hurt us. So, to me, the patience of BJJ's approach on the ground can be over-cooked for SD (I get into that, myself, in ground work), but is also a useful trait to cultivate.

We can be more patient and defensive, except when we can't. I'm not sure how we classify the difference, except in that moment. So we need both the ability to be super-aggressive ("I gotta win and get out, or I'm not gonna make it!") and the ability to be patient and defensive ("I need to get out, so I can stall for an opportunity."). I think most martial arts training (at least most of what I've seen) has at least some of both elements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Striking changes the dynamics of that though.


Yes. If they just want to throw me (and nobody else is interfering), I can most likely stymie them indefinitely. If they want to punch, and punch often enough, I'm going to eventually miss a key block unless they are pretty bad at it. I guess we could add patient offense against some of those folks (using a few kicks and long-range punches to keep them out of flurry range) to help, but each attempted strike is still a chance to mess up and get clobbered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> While rewatching the videos I noticed the Tai Chi guys had shoes on, while the bjj and judo guys were barefoot. Having shoes helps to grip the mats and aids in stability. Though that wasn't the deciding factor in the outcomes, it definitely played a factor.


I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. Those who train without shoes don't tend to get best use of grippy-soled shoes. Some of that is on purpose (as in my case, since dress shoes aren't usually very grippy, for instance).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. If they just want to throw me (and nobody else is interfering), I can most likely stymie them indefinitely. If they want to punch, and punch often enough, I'm going to eventually miss a key block unless they are pretty bad at it. I guess we could add patient offense against some of those folks (using a few kicks and long-range punches to keep them out of flurry range) to help, but each attempted strike is still a chance to mess up and get clobbered.



You also have to switch between punching defence and takedown defence. Or swich between punching and takedown defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> This can sometimes be a valid tactic in a self-defense context - especially if the situation allows the defender to keep retreating in order to avoid engagement.
> 
> It's not typically such a good idea in a _training_ context, even if you are training for self-defense, for a few reasons:
> 
> 
> Part of developing a really good defense against a certain attack (whether it's striking or takedowns) is understanding and getting competent at the attack yourself. (Just as mastering an attack requires understanding the defenses against it.)
> Even a defensive strategy is greatly bolstered by having an effective offense in your tool box. If an opponent has no cause to be concerned about your ability to do anything to him, he can commit 100% to his attack with no fear of repercussion.
> Many self-defense scenarios do not allow the luxury of just retreating and defending the whole time. They occur suddenly at close range, with avenues for retreat blocked off. Even if you just want to get home safely you may have to hurt or take down your attacker long enough to make your escape.
> There's a place in training for purely defensive and evasive drills, but they don't take away the need to practice offense as well.


Agreed. Part of training should be purely defensive. Part should be purely offensive. And much of it should be learning to blend the two effectively.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't assume he can use it either. That clip shows he has defensive skill. That clip shows he has no offensive skill.


More clearly stated, that clip shows no evidence of offensive skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> When I refer to throw I don't mean the conceptual energy "throw". To be more specific, a technique to take an opponent down. This include throwing, sweeping and takedown techniques. The Tai Chi style I studied had takedowns. Not all takedowns require 2 opposing forces to be executed by the practitioner.


Off the top of my head, I can't think of a takedown or throw that doesn't use opposing forces, except some that I consider esoteric - meaning they don't have direct application (and even most of those require opposing forces). Can you describe one or point me to a video so I can understand what you're talking about?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> By that same logic I'll drill holes in my car to make it go faster. Is there evidence that says doing so will make it faster? No. But there's no evidence that states that it won't. I'll start believing in fairies, goblins and witches too. Again, no evidence refutes their existence.


That goes beyond his statement. If I drive my car at the speed limit, you have no evidence it can go faster. But that doesn't prove it can't - just that it didn't. That's all he's saying. We can't say there's no takedown skill simply because we didn't see it used. Had we seen him try, and he had demonstrated that lack of takedown skill, then we'd have evidence. Lack of evidence is a good reason to be skeptical of claims (so we don't believe in fairy stories), but we can't really draw conclusions from it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> There are trips which are just a sweep variants, you position yourself close to your opponent, take his balance, and essentially walk through his space taking him to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do or don't consider that opposing forces? I don't know if you're using this as an example for or against opposing forces.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way for me to that is to break his torso in half and rotate the two halves independently. Meaning, both shoulders are going in the same direction, no opposing forces.


On that last one, you are correct that they'd both be going in the same circular direction. But that is opposing forces on his stance, and opposing forces from the thrower. One shoulder is being moved forward, and the other backward. That creates the opposing forces. For the throw to be effective, one shoulder has to (relatively) move up, and the other down, as well - still circling within the same plane, but opposing forces, nonetheless. Mind you, "opposing" is a relative term here. I could refer to these as "cooperating" forces, as well, since the push up and back on one side makes moving the other down and forward easier, and vice versa.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> It's a circular motion, which are very prevalent in Tai Chi.
> 
> 
> This isn't about what's effective, it's a response to your opposing forces comment. I gave you an example of a takedown without opposing forces.


A trip fits the "opposing forces" paradigm. The person is moving in one direction, and the stationary foot is the (philosophical) second force. (Speaking in physics terms, the moving leg actually exerts force against the stationary foot.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You also have to switch between punching defence and takedown defence. Or swich between punching and takedown defence.


Ah, I see your point - you meant (as you said) adding strikes, not just changing to situation to strikes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> More clearly stated, that clip shows no evidence of offensive skill.


Agree! If you train

- throw, you will take down your opponent all your life.
- strong rooting, you will be taken down all your life.

If you train

- iron palm, you will punch on your opponent all your life.
- iron shirt, you will be punched all your life.

The defense skill does not equal to the offense skill.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Flying Crane said:


> Except that most taiji people, when it comes to application of the skills, do not enter competitions.



Most don't. I'd say that the Tai Chi practitioner in the second video was setting up a "competition" in order to show off the effectiveness of his art - he was just rigging the competition in his favor.

(I don't know what the context was for the first video. That looks more like a friendly sharing of experience.)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a takedown or throw that doesn't use opposing forces, except some that I consider esoteric - meaning they don't have direct application (and even most of those require opposing forces). Can you describe one or point me to a video so I can understand what you're talking about?


The only 1 point contact throw that I can think of is the foot sweep. When your opponent steps in, you sweep his leading leg without upper body pulling force. It only works against beginner and it requires good timing. I have never seen it ever works on the wrestling mat against experienced wrestler yet.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The only 1 point contact throw that I can think of is the foot sweep. When your opponent steps in, you sweep his leading leg without upper body pulling force. It only works against beginner and it requires good timing. I have never seen it ever works on the wrestling mat against experienced wrestler yet.



Snake Creeps down Yang Style and Wu Style can be applied as a throw
So can the transition from Grasp the Sparrow's Tail (Ward Off, Left; Ward Off, Right; Roll Back; Press; Push) to single Whip, but a takedown or Qinna would be easier to do here
There is another Posture in Northern Wu style that is a pick up and a throw, sorry I cannot remember the name of the posture
And I believe there is at least 1 throw in Chen, although I would have to check.

But you are correct in saying there are by far more sweeps, takedowns, pushes that throws. There is also a lot more Qinna than ther are throws in most Taijiquan forms


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The only 1 point contact throw that I can think of is the foot sweep. When your opponent steps in, you sweep his leading leg without upper body pulling force. It only works against beginner and it requires good timing. I have never seen it ever works on the wrestling mat against experienced wrestler yet.


I'd say even that requires opposing forces - you're just not providing both. The reason it works on beginners and not experienced folks is that the experienced folks learn to remove the second force (either forward momentum or downward force on the swept leg) or to stymie the force you put in (rooted enough to stop a weak sweep). Mind you, that's my interpretation of what I think you're referring to, so your interpretation might be different or I might be talking about something different.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> the experienced folks learn to remove the second force (either forward momentum or downward force on the swept leg) or to stymie the force you put in (rooted enough to stop a weak sweep).


The difference between a beginner and an experienced person is the experienced person can shift weight from one leg to the other leg faster. The foot sweep is the easiest throw that one can escape. All he needs to do is to bend his leg at his knee joint and let the sweeping leg to pass under it. To drop more weight and turn the shin bone into the sweep is another way to counter it. I like the 2nd approach better. I always like to take advantage than just escape. Most of the time when my opponent sweeps me, I can take him down with single leg.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. Those who train without shoes don't tend to get best use of grippy-soled shoes. Some of that is on purpose (as in my case, since dress shoes aren't usually very grippy, for instance).



Considering the TC practitioner wasn't sliding around with his shoes on, the shoes have a type of sole that grips the mats to some degree. Are they providing cleat level gripping, probably not, but they still played a factor.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I see your point - you meant (as you said) adding strikes, not just changing to situation to strikes.



Yeah. Sit there defending take downs and you just get punched.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a takedown or throw that doesn't use opposing forces, except some that I consider esoteric - meaning they don't have direct application (and even most of those require opposing forces). Can you describe one or point me to a video so I can understand what you're talking about?



I took Tai Chi and we had takedowns/throws/sweeps, other Tai Chi styles have them as well. I was responding to Kung Fu Wang's comment on opposing forces by giving examples of takedown/throws/sweeps without without opposing forces. He himself used the Diagonal Fly technique as an example, in which you block the leg. That's in Tai Chi, but yet the block isn't considered an opposing force for that technique. The shoulder twist motion Wang was referring to is a circular technique done with both hands. That's not opposing forces nor does it violate a Tai Chi concept. It seems the term "force" is what's causing some confusion. If you look at the Tai Chi forms with that definition of "force", there's a lot of opposing forces.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The only 1 point contact throw that I can think of is the foot sweep. When your opponent steps in, you sweep his leading leg without upper body pulling force. It only works against beginner and it requires good timing. I have never seen it ever works on the wrestling mat against experienced wrestler yet.



Choke slam.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> That goes beyond his statement. If I drive my car at the speed limit, you have no evidence it can go faster. But that doesn't prove it can't - just that it didn't. That's all he's saying. We can't say there's no takedown skill simply because we didn't see it used. Had we seen him try, and he had demonstrated that lack of takedown skill, then we'd have evidence. Lack of evidence is a good reason to be skeptical of claims (so we don't believe in fairy stories), but we can't really draw conclusions from it.



My examples were based off the same logic though. If I entered a race and lost, everyone could just make the excuse "he was capable of so much more", even though it's a competition and I didn't win. Believing anyone has these amazing dormant skills even though they don't demonstrate it in a "competition" seems presumptuous.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> A trip fits the "opposing forces" paradigm. The person is moving in one direction, and the stationary foot is the (philosophical) second force. (Speaking in physics terms, the moving leg actually exerts force against the stationary foot.)



It seems the term "force" for this thread is very loose. I was approaching it from the scientific standpoint, as you did. That's why I asked wang if he considered his example was or wasn't for opposing forces. I took Tai Chi and we didn't use this "philosophical" definition of force.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Choke slam.


This remind me one of the hip throw counter "helmet remove" that when your opponent tries to hip throw you, you put your hand on top of his head, pull his head back and take him down.


----------



## Flying Crane

Anarax said:


> Tai Chi has so much more to offer than what he "demonstrated." Someone with basic grappling skills and only focused on takedown defense could've achieved the same thing. He proved nothing for Tai Chi.


Again, so what?


----------



## Flying Crane

Anarax said:


> By that same logic I'll drill holes in my car to make it go faster. Is there evidence that says doing so will make it faster? No. But there's no evidence that states that it won't. I'll start believing in fairies, goblins and witches too. Again, no evidence refutes their existence.


Ok, well, these are your problems.  Good luck with them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> It's a circular motion, which are very prevalent in Tai Chi.


All throwing are circular motion. The opposite forces (push head down, sweep/hook/lift/... leg up) can be considered as circular motion.


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All throwing are circular motion. The opposite forces (push head down, sweep/hook/lift/... leg up) can be considered as circular motion.



Nice illustrations. What book is it? Tai Chi has circular movements, thus if throws/sweeps are circular what's the conceptual violation?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> Nice illustrations. What book is it? Tai Chi has circular movements, thus if throws/sweeps are circular what's the conceptual violation?


The book is "Chinese Wrestling" (only in Chinese). It's published by a group of Chinese wrestling instructors in China. It contain 62 categories of throws, a total about 220 different throws.







In order to cause a circular moment, besides the hand skill, one needs to add in the leg skill such as cut, hook, break, horse back kick, lift, twist, spring, bite, sweep, scoop, sticky lift, ...

IMO, those leg skill training are missing in Taiji.

Here is a leg lift training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> My examples were based off the same logic though. If I entered a race and lost, everyone could just make the excuse "he was capable of so much more", even though it's a competition and I didn't win. Believing anyone has these amazing dormant skills even though they don't demonstrate it in a "competition" seems presumptuous.


They could, in fact. Of course, they would be ignoring the evidence provided by your attempt, which is not a lack of evidence.  If you didn’t enter that competition, then we’d have no evidence at all.


----------



## Shia

I didn't read. I'm jumping in and please ignore this if youre not interested.

Here i go:

I know the balance center the core is the seat of desires, everything materialistic, being the lower Dan Tian. Which equals the Indian Muladhara (Root Support) chakra. Then your legs move in front of your upper body, because youre confident. If some would attack you by trying to uproot you, you are physically and mentally equipped and will not nudge for their attempt to sweep your legs or take you down (whats take down). Because you are rooted like a tree, you are also stiff. If pushed from top or dragged down you wont bend, because youre strong, and rooted, but if done with power that push from the upper body you will fall like a trunk.

There comes a price with following your desires.

Peace


----------

