# Some more thoughts on "anti grappling".



## geezer (Sep 23, 2014)

This comes out of a discussion I was having on the general forum. A lot of people have questioned  the validity of some of the so called "anti grappling" taught to WCers and other stand-up, striking focused martial artists. And they are right to do so. Some of the "anti grappling" programs being promoted leave much to be desired. 

On the other hand, properly understood, the concept of "anti grappling" as a method to escape and get back into your striking game is totally valid and something every striker should know. In other words, if you can't beat the other guy at his game, learn how to get back into your game. So the difference between grappling and "antigrappling" is basically a matter of your _objective_ rather than methods. 

The following clip illustrates the difference between very basic self-defense grappling and "anti-grappling" as taught to beginners. If you pay attention to the finishing strategies Stephan outlines from around 3:00 to 3:20 where he explains that instead of the grappler's solution of going to the armbar, you may prefer to disengage and run, or stay on top and finish with punches. These are more practical solutions for a person whose primary experience is in a striking art. In otherwords,_ "anti-grappling". _


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 23, 2014)

Anyone who is interested in "anti-grappling" should watch the fights of Chuck Liddell. He was a master of using his wrestling skills to negate his opponent's takedowns so that he could finish fights with his striking.

Cung Le is another fighter who is good at this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

I don't believe "anti-grappling" exist. On the other hands, I do believe "anti-striking" exist. When a striker's arms gets wrapped, it's very difficult to break it free. If you can control your opponent's arm like the following picture, it will be very hard for your opponent to counter you. 

If your 

- right upper arm holds on your opponent's wrist area.
- right hand controls his elbow area.

This "2 points control" will disable your opponent's arm function completely.

Old saying said, "You should never apply your head lock if you can't achieved the following:

- have a completely control on your opponent's leading arm.
- put his head below and touch your chest.
- make his spine to bend either side way or forward.
- ..."












In the following clip, the grappler did not control his opponent's arm the way he should have. His opponent's arm has too much freedom.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2014)

I have rolly pollied guys from side headlock. It does work.  Hitting that high under hook before the lock is on also is a good idea.

In the vein of anti grapple. Shoulder posting.

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


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

If you can also use your head lock hand to control his upper arm, that will give you a "3 points control" on his arm. It will complete disable that arm's function.







When an octopus (grappler) wraps on a shark (striker), it's not that easy for that shark (striker) to continue it's biting (striking) game. This is why IMO, the "anti-striking" is possible, but the "anti-grappling" is very difficult to do (if not impossible).


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When an octopus (grappler) wraps on a shark (striker), it's not that easy for that shark (striker) to continue it's biting (striking) game. This is why IMO, the "anti-striking" is possible, but the "anti-grappling" is very difficult to do (if not impossible).



Have you watched any high-level "sprawl-and-brawl" specialists in the cage? There most definitely are folks out there who know how to use their grappling skills to keep from being taken down, or kept down, or tied up in a clinch for very long and who use that ability to keep their fights in the striking range.


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why IMO, the "anti-striking" is possible, but the "anti-grappling" is very difficult to do (if not impossible).



I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here, John. Escapes and reversals happen all the time in any grappling bout. As I see it, "anti grappling" is just that. Grappling skills directed at working your way back to a stand-up game. Like the shoulder-post and stand up in base clip _Drop Bear_ posted. And yes, this kind of move _is_ possible!

You seem to mean something different when you use the term "anti grappling".


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2014)

This is more along the lines of the "anti-grappling" I brought up in the other thread;






I tend to laugh at stuff like this, but I know that that upsets some people.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing here, John. Escapes and reversals happen all the time in any grappling bout. As I see it, "anti grappling" is just that. Grappling skills directed at working your way back to a stand-up game. Like the shoulder-post and stand up in base clip _Drop Bear_ posted. And yes, this kind of move _is_ possible!
> 
> You seem to mean something different when you use the term "anti grappling".



IMO, it's easier to get into clinch. It's harder to get out of a clinch. A clinch will lead into a take down. A take down will lead into ground game. The stand up game ends and the ground game starts.

I assume the "anti-grappling" strategy is used by a striker to deal with a grappler. If 2 grapplers deal with each other, the term "anti-grappling' will have no meaning. It's just a grappler uses his grappling skill to deal with another grappler's grappling skill. How successful can a striker without any grappling knowledge be able to avoid "clinch" is what we are taking about here. If "anti-grappling" will require someone to train grappling, after he has trained grappling, he is no longer a pure striker. The term "anti-grappling" also no longer make sense. He just uses his grappling skill against another's grappler's grappling skill.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This is more along the lines of the "anti-grappling" I brought up in the other thread;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't laugh at that crap.  It's dishonest.


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This is more along the lines of the "anti-grappling" I brought up in the other thread;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go ahead, laugh. It's a free country. But while you're at it, could you pick out a couple of _specific_ moves on the clip so we know exactly what you are laughing at?

I personally have always had a problem with the idea (also shown on this clip) that you could easily stop a well timed and commited shoot for a takedown with a flurry of punches (3:16-3:40). So for me the general problem here is the lack of realism on the part of the opponents. They seem like straw men.


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

Thoughts?

Edit:

Also, I'm curious if grapplers see any "grappling" / "anti-grappling" value in this kind of chi-sao:


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If "anti-grappling" will require someone to train grappling, after he has trained grappling, he is no longer a pure striker. The term "anti-grappling" also no longer make sense. He just uses his grappling skill against another's grappler's grappling skill.



Well it may not make sense, but this is exactly what I meant. To escape a grappler and get back to standup will require some skill at grappling. I don't believe striking alone is always enough. So maybe we don't disagree completely after all?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

Argus said:


> Also, I'm curious if grapplers see any "grappling" / "anti-grappling" value in this kind of chi-sao:



A grappler will grab on his opponent's wrists, move into elbows, and then move into shoulder, waist, or head. From a grappler point of view, to disable his opponent's arms mobility should be his highest priority. A grappler will never roll with his opponent's arms as shown in that clip.



geezer said:


> To escape a grappler and get back to standup will require some skill at grappling. I don't believe striking alone is always enough. So maybe we don't disagree completely after all?



We may say the same thing by using different words. If you are a 

- social person, the term "anti-social",
- communist, the term "anti-communist",
- striker, the term "anti-striking",
- grappler, the term "anti-grappling", 

will have no meaning to you.  If you are a "pure" striker who has no knowledge in grappling, you try to take a short cut by applying "anti-grappling" strategy to deal with a grappler, you may want to train how to avoid "clinch" and not allow your opponent to get you into head lock, under hook, over hook, bear hug, waist surround, double legs, single leg, ...


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A grappler will grab on his opponent's wrists, move into elbows, and then move into shoulder, waist, or head. From a grappler point of view, to disable his opponent's arms mobility should be his highest priority. A grappler will never roll with his opponent's arms as shown in that clip.



As if, of all things, we don't know how to handle that?

I'm sorry, but when it comes to someone trying to manipulate or control our hands, I don't think you'll find any art better adept at dealing with that than Wing Chun...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

Argus said:


> I'm sorry, but when it comes to someone trying to manipulate or control our hands, I don't think you'll find any art better adept at dealing with that than Wing Chun...


There is a difference between the "stick" concept and the "hook" concept. When you 

- "stick" on your opponent's arm, it's easy for your opponent to move his arm away and break that "stickiness".
- "hook" on your opponent's arm, when your opponent moves his arm, his arm will pull your arm with it.

If WC "sticky hands" can integrate the "hook (grab)" concept, it will function the same as the wrestler's "octopus arms".


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> Go ahead, laugh. It's a free country. But while you're at it, could you pick out a couple of _specific_ moves on the clip so we know exactly what you are laughing at?



Well for starters, the fact that they go through great pains to tell us that this is pure Kung Fu, and that they didn't pull it from another system. Why they found it necessary to point that out I have no idea.

The "anti-grappling" in that vid always begins in dominant positions (except for the last one). Just FYI; If you have a grappler in side control, or the mount, you don't need "anti-grappling". You're a pretty good grappler already. It's also not hard to do damage to someone when you already have a superior position on them. I can beat the crap out of anyone if I have them in side control and they're letting me pound their face into the pavement. You would think that people would use this stuff when they're in an _inferior_ position.

The WC exponent did one of the most hilarious guard passes I've seen on video around 2:25. However, why would they show a guard pass in the first place? The guard is a defensive position, and a Bjj exponent (i'm assuming its bjj since that's where its most commonly seen) is only going to use it if you're the aggressor and you've pushed the Bjj exponent onto their back and forced them into that position. Do they think that you need to defend yourself from a Bjj person fighting in guard on the street? Like some Bjj tough guy is going to grab you and then do a guard pull onto the pavement? Its nonsense.

I guess the final part of the video was takedown defense? Hilarious. As you said, the chances of knocking someone out or down in a takedown attempt with a flurry of punches is pretty slim. If they know what they're doing, the slim becomes close to zero.


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are different between "stick" and "hook". When you
> 
> - "stick" on your opponent's arm, it's easy for your opponent to move his arm away and break that "stickiness".
> - "hook" on your opponent's arm, when your opponent moves his arm, his arm will pull your arm with it.
> ...



With respect, I don't think you understand chisau.


----------



## Skip Cooper (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When an octopus (grappler) wraps on a shark (striker), it's not that easy for that shark (striker) to continue it's biting (striking) game. This is why IMO, the "anti-striking" is possible, but the "anti-grappling" is very difficult to do (if not impossible).




That was awesome. I'm now thinking about getting an tattoo of a octopus submitting a shark!


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2014)

Argus said:


> Thoughts?



The guy is sprawling and clearly has a clue about the double leg takedown. I have no issue with that clip.



> Also, I'm curious if grapplers see any "grappling" / "anti-grappling" value in this kind of chi-sao:



Good way to get your arm snapped.


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Good way to get your arm snapped.



Eh, not really. It's not like grabs and locks are foreign to us. I'd even go so far as to say that we're pretty familiar with them in a chisau context. I was more pointing to the structure and sensitivity. But, just because we might _play_ a certain way in Chisau, against other WC practitioners, doesn't mean we'll do the same thing verbatim against, say, a grappler. Heck, in that particular clip, they were rarely even striking. This is akin to me watching a BJJ match (well, not even that. A playful rolling session that is purely BJJ on BJJ) and commenting that "geez, that looks like a great way to get punched" because they're not worried about, and don't account for strikes, being that it isn't an MMA/SD setting, but rather just friendly rolling working solely on BJJ techniques.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2014)

Argus said:


> Eh, not really. It's not like grabs and locks are foreign to us. I'd even go so far as to say that we're pretty familiar with them in a chisau context. I was more pointing to the structure and sensitivity. But, just because we might _play_ a certain way in Chisau, against other WC practitioners, doesn't mean we'll do the same thing verbatim against, say, a grappler. Heck, in that particular clip, they were rarely even striking. This is akin to me watching a BJJ match (well, not even that. A playful rolling session that is purely BJJ on BJJ) and commenting that "geez, that looks like a great way to get punched" because they're not worried about, and don't account for strikes, being that it isn't an MMA/SD setting, but rather just friendly rolling working solely on BJJ techniques.



I'm not viewing that from a perspective of us standing next to each other. I'm viewing it from a perspective of the WC exponent being in an inferior grappling position, and trying to strike or weave their way out of that position. That leaves them wide open for arm traps, which in turn can lead to all sorts of nasty things.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2014)

Argus said:


> Thoughts?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Also, I'm curious if grapplers see any "grappling" / "anti-grappling" value in this kind of chi-sao:



First one works. We cross face as well. And is basic double leg defence. Shown here with a bit of wizzer as well.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAvTRzpGzWw


The second one is sorta. Wrestling has a similar drill called pummeling.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VrfDW3HA0ZA


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...  If you are a "pure" striker who has no knowledge in grappling, you try to take a short cut by applying "anti-grappling" strategy to deal with a grappler, you may want to train how to avoid "clinch" and not allow your opponent to get you into head lock, under hook, over hook, bear hug, waist surround, double legs, single leg, ...



As a renegade WC practitioner _I have no interest in this purity you speak of!_ ...Ti, da, shuai, na. All TCMA have some of each. WC may emphasize some areas more than others, but you should be capable of handling yourself to a limited degree in all ranges. 

Practically speaking though, this means that you will want to fight on your terms, not your opponent's. If he is a long range fighter, then you will try to fight in close. If he prefers the ground, you will want to stand and strike. If you must grapple, you may choose to get back to your striking game rather than keep it on the ground ...if you have the skill to do so. 


And for the record, _in my lexicon _"anti-grappling" would consist of:

a. Tactics to prevent the grappler from clinching and taking you to the ground.
b. Sufficient grappling skill to survive on the ground against an average opponent.
c. A few well practiced escape techniques to help you recover_ your_ game. 

--will this be enough to defeat a great grappler if he gets you on the ground? No, of course not. But such knowledge will definitely help you in a self-defense situation. As will a knowledge of improvised weapons, kicking, punching and so forth. In an uncertain and changeable environment, the adaptable _generalist_ has an advantage over the narrowly focused _specialist_. That's pretty well established.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2014)

Skip Cooper said:


> That was awesome. I'm now thinking about getting an tattoo of a octopus submitting a shark!




On fire shooting a machine gun.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2014)

Catch grip fighting.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoOX58AE9g

So you would chisau for double under hooks or a double leg if you wanted to hybridise your system.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2014)

I did this thread on out fighting and why you would use it to combat grappling.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/members/32080.html


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> a. Tactics to prevent the grappler from clinching.



It's not that difficult to prevent your grappler opponent from getting a successful clinch. If your opponent tries to get you an

- over hook (or arm wrap), you rotate your arm the same direction as his arm does,
- under hook, you raise your arm straight up,
- head lock, you dodge your head under his arm,
- ...

I have tested this strategy myself many times. If I just concentrate 100% on not to let my opponent to get a successful clinch on me, I can keep my opponent away for 20 minutes (that was the maximum amount of time that I had tried myself). The problem is 

- what will this give me?
- how long do I have to keep on doing this?

The moment that I try to punch my opponent's head, the moment that I give my opponent a chance to wrap around my extended punching arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2014)

Skip Cooper said:


> That was awesome. I'm now thinking about getting an tattoo of a octopus submitting a shark!



I had given the following clip a name as "octopus" strategy on my face book page.


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The second one is sorta. Wrestling has a similar drill called pummeling.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VrfDW3HA0ZA



I love that pummeling drill. Kind of intrigued by wrestling now.


----------



## Skip Cooper (Sep 23, 2014)

drop bear said:


> on fire shooting a machine gun.



Yes!!!


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> As a renegade WC practitioner _I have no interest in this purity you speak of!_ ...Ti, da, shuai, na. All TCMA have some of each. WC may emphasize some areas more than others, but you should be capable of handling yourself to a limited degree in all ranges.
> 
> Practically speaking though, this means that you will want to fight on your terms, not your opponent's. If he is a long range fighter, then you will try to fight in close. If he prefers the ground, you will want to stand and strike. If you must grapple, you may choose to get back to your striking game rather than keep it on the ground ...if you have the skill to do so.
> 
> ...



The question is this;

Does the ability to stop a grappler exist within Wing Chun without having to go outside the style?

If so, what is that ability? If not, why is this ability non-existent within the style?

I think we all agree that the "anti-grappling" stuff shown by some Wing Chun/Tsun schools clearly isn't the real deal.

P.S.: I have a theory about this, but I'd like to hear your take on it first.


----------



## Argus (Sep 23, 2014)

I have mixed feelings on Izzo and some of his Wing Chun, but there is this:


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 23, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The question is this;
> 
> Does the ability to stop a grappler exist within Wing Chun without having to go outside the style?
> 
> ...


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> I have mixed feelings on Izzo and some of his Wing Chun, but there is this:



That was actually a pretty good video. Props to Izzo for having the guts to do that.

One thing I'm noticing is the over-reliance on countering the double or single leg takedown. I'm not seeing much in the way of stopping the clinch, which is what the Gracies used in their takedowns after using strikes to distract their target. I'm willing to bet that the clinch is way more common than the DLT or SLT, since it requires zero training, and is a natural grapple.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> (Answer-YES)
> 
> 
> ((Answer:Sufficient understanding and training in wing chun in depth---that includes among other things understanding structure, adjustment, timing and whole body coordination))



That argument would imply that those that created Wing Chun anti-grappling didn't possess those attributes, which is why they felt the need to construct an answer to the grappling "problem".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2014)

In Shuai-Chiao, the 10 basic anti-grappling principless are:

1. &#21560;(XI) - Sticky, 
2. &#25695;(LOU) - Double hooks,
3. &#21246;(GOU) - Outer leg hook,
4. &#21028;(PAN) - Trap,
5. &#21066;(XIAO) - Sickle hook, 
6. &#36466;(DUN) - Drop,
7. &#36339;(TIAO) - Hop, 
8. &#30952;(MO) - Spin, 
9. &#36703;(HONG) - Herd, 
10. &#25671;(YAO) - Shake 
 
Here is an example to use "&#21246;(GOU) - Outer leg hook" to counter "hip throw (the mother of all throws)".


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The question is this;
> 
> Does the ability to stop a grappler exist within Wing Chun without having to go outside the style?
> 
> ...




I have expressed my own on this a couple of times. They are trying to stop grappling and retain true to their own principles on fighting. Which just doesn't work. They are different structures.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> I love that pummeling drill. Kind of intrigued by wrestling now.



You will find similar concepts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They are trying to stop grappling and retain true to their own principles on fighting. Which just doesn't work. They are different structures.



Agree!

To train the grappling art is like to find the right key to open the right lock. With the right key, it takes very little effort to open the right lock. People may try to find a "master key" that can open all locks. Unfortunately, such "master key" doesn't exist in the grappling art. 

- The defense principle used on "hip throw" is different from 
- the defense principle used on "leg lift" throw, which is also different from 
- the defense principle used on "leg twist" throw.


----------



## Steve (Sep 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> I have mixed feelings on Izzo and some of his Wing Chun, but there is this:


This guy is going to be a lot more successful against wrestlers because he is actually working out with real wrestlers.  I don't know about the techniques, but I am completely confident that the guy above is going to have a lot more success because he's actually testing his technique.

The guy in the first, dishonest "anti-grappling" video will not be successful against grapplers, because he is in denial.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2014)

So, to sum up:

True "anti-grappling" *is* _grappling._

And to add a bit more:

*ALL* "striking styles" contain some _grappling,_ just as likewise, *ALL* "grappling styles" contain some _striking._

If you think a "striking style" doesn't contain some _grappling_, then either you're ignorant, or the person practicing it is.

If you think wing chun (considering which forum this is) doesn't contain some grappling-suifficient to deter a takedown-then someone isn't paying attention, and you're either watching or training with people who don't know-or don't _show._

Ditto for a "grappling style." If you think judo, for example,  doesn't have strikes-you're either watching or training with people who don't know ,or don't _show_ ....though this last is understandable, considering the predominance of watered-down, wussified, sport/Olympic style instruction....(noticed that I said "instruction.)


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

elder999 said:


> So, to sum up:
> 
> True "anti-grappling" *is* _grappling._
> 
> ...



What would be the WC grappling you're referring to?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> What would be the WC grappling you're referring to?




It would be _standing_ grappling, based on WC principles and trapping. WC's problem with today's grappling isn't just it's skill set, or the people who train others in it-its principle problem lies in its history, and the fact that it was developed in an environment where ground grappling wasn't really much of an option, and grappling was usually after the beating and  a precursor to knifing......


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

elder999 said:


> It would be _standing_ grappling, based on WC principles and trapping. WC's problem with today's grappling isn't just it's skill set, or the people who train others in it-its principle problem lies in its history, and the fact that it was developed in an environment where ground grappling wasn't really much of an option, and grappling was usually after the beating and  a precursor to knifing......



Standing grappling in order to avoid a takedown? Interesting. Is there anywhere I can view this technique? I would be very interested in seeing its execution.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Standing grappling in order to avoid a takedown? Interesting. Is there anywhere I can view this technique? I would be very interested in seeing its execution.



What, you never saw Chuck Lidell? :lfao:


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

elder999 said:


> What, you never saw Chuck Lidell? :lfao:



I was talking about WC style. Liddell is definitely not Wing Chun. His stuff is a combination of MT clinchwork and wrestling.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> That argument would imply that those that created Wing Chun anti-grappling didn't possess those attributes, which is why they felt the need to construct an answer to the grappling "problem".


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect assumption and ergo incorrect conclusion.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Incorrect assumption and ergo incorrect conclusion.



Where's the incorrect assumption? 














This stuff actually exists.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Where's the incorrect assumption?
> 
> ((Assuming that youtube clips capture all that is there to wing chun.
> Different schools of wing chun have quite different understandings
> ...



((sure. The participants are doing their own thing))


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 24, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> _((Assuming that youtube clips capture all that is there to wing chun._
> _Different schools of wing chun have quite different understandings_
> _of what wing chun is))_



I never said that was all there is to Wing Chun. I was simply pointing out what your argument implies. If your argument is true, none of those videos should exist.



> ((sure. The participants are doing their own thing))



And its the wrong thing. 

One of those vids is actually proclaiming that you can trade punches on your back with someone in the mounted position. Keep in mind, he did this after instructing his partner to scoot back off his chest. After all, the guy on the street pummeling your brains in is going to be kind enough to scoot back onto your belly to give you more leverage.


----------



## Argus (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> That was actually a pretty good video. Props to Izzo for having the guts to do that.
> 
> One thing I'm noticing is the over-reliance on countering the double or single leg takedown. I'm not seeing much in the way of stopping the clinch, which is what the Gracies used in their takedowns after using strikes to distract their target. I'm willing to bet that the clinch is way more common than the DLT or SLT, since it requires zero training, and is a natural grapple.



This is actually something I do practice, granted with a WC training partner. We'll practice having one party set up and go for a clinch as best we can. In my experience, a clinch can only happen if your arms are spread off center, or if someone gets underneath your elbows. Of course, if your opponent's timing is really good, it's difficult to react in time, but I find that I have pretty good success defending against a clinch with a quan-sau, keeping the arms in and getting one arm low, while trying to sink and step offline. From there, it's usually pretty easy to strike or wrap the opponent's arm behind his back and control his neck, or just push him to the side and disengage. The important thing is just sinking quickly, keeping the hands and elbows low and in the center, and not letting your opponent get underneath you. 

Of course, we're not trained grapplers. But this would seem to be a good first line of defense against your average Joe, if you take the time to practice it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 24, 2014)

I've got plenty of respect for Wing Chun as a martial art. That said, the gentlemen in the videos that Hanzou posted are just embarrassing themselves and teaching their students how to get hurt. They should stick to what they know or else get some actual instruction in areas they are ignorant of.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 24, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I never said that was all there is to Wing Chun. I was simply pointing out what your argument implies. If your argument is true, none of those videos should exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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

There is no quality control in wing chun  across all the lineages. There are fundamental differences in concepts of structure -as a start. Yes the videos have major shortcomings imo.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> I find that I have pretty good success defending against a clinch with a quan-sau, keeping the arms in and getting one arm low, while trying to sink and step offline. From there, it's usually pretty easy to strike or wrap the opponent's arm behind his back and control his neck, or just push him to the side and disengage. The important thing is just sinking quickly, keeping the hands and elbows low and in the center, and not letting your opponent get underneath you.
> 
> Of course, we're not trained grapplers. But this would seem to be a good first line of defense against your average Joe, if you take the time to practice it.


 
I think we need to define the word "grappling" in more detail. 

You will need skill to:

1. prevent a clinch from happening (If you can knock down your opponent before he gets a clinch on you, that will work).
2. deal with a clinch after it has already happened (how to deal with head lock, under hook, over hook, bear hug, ...).
3. defense against throw (how to defense against single leg, double legs, hip throw, inner hook, ...). 
4. deal with ground game (how to deal with choke, arm bar, leg bar, side mount, ...).

Do you imply that "anti-grappling" is only the 1st stage training? Do you think the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stage training should also be included just in case your 1st stage "anti-grappling" strategy may not work as you have predicted?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2014)

elder999 said:


> It would be _standing_ grappling, based on WC principles and trapping. ...


What WC principles and trapping will you use to prevent the following from happening?

- MT guy's "double neck tie",
- wrestler's "double under hook",
- Judo guy's "waist wrap",
- ...

 A clinch can happen so quickly. IME, it's not that easy to prevent it from happening.






What if this has happened so quickly that you didn't have time to prevent it?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What WC principles and trapping will you use to prevent the following from happening?
> 
> - MT guy's "double neck tie",
> - wrestler's "double under hook",
> ...



_What if the sky fell down ?_


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Argus said:


> This is actually something I do practice, granted with a WC training partner. We'll practice having one party set up and go for a clinch as best we can. In my experience, a clinch can only happen if your arms are spread off center, or if someone gets underneath your elbows. Of course, if your opponent's timing is really good, it's difficult to react in time, but I find that I have pretty good success defending against a clinch with a quan-sau, keeping the arms in and getting one arm low, while trying to sink and step offline. From there, it's usually pretty easy to strike or wrap the opponent's arm behind his back and control his neck, or just push him to the side and disengage. The important thing is just sinking quickly, keeping the hands and elbows low and in the center, and not letting your opponent get underneath you.
> 
> Of course, we're not trained grapplers. But this would seem to be a good first line of defense against your average Joe, if you take the time to practice it.



But all you are doing is defending the grapple? Constant running away in just a wrestling format does have a high success rate. Untill  you either add striking or the wrestler eventually just rugby tackles you.

Otherwise defending against noob grapplers will give you a false idea of what works. They are noobs everything works.

OK this is boxing but the point is there.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wCea6uPRSyQ


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What WC principles and trapping will you use to prevent the following from happening?
> 
> - MT guy's "double neck tie",
> - wrestler's "double under hook",
> ...



A punch to the face can happen so quickly as well.

What if this happened so quickly that you didn't have time to prevent it?






Do all the grappling arts train by getting punched really hard in the face then trying to apply their techniques?

Or do they train tactics and techniques to try and prevent that from happening?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> A punch to the face can happen so quickly as well.
> 
> What if this happened so quickly that you didn't have time to prevent it?
> 
> ...



They train and try to prevent.

Grappling tends to beat striking. From my experience anecdotally but as to the mechanics of why. I have not been able to come up with a good explanation.

I think maybe it is positional dominance. The grappling positional dominance is a lot greater than the striking one. So if we fight striking I push you into a corner I have the dominant position but it is a 60/40

If I get on top in a wrestle it is a 90/10 

And that is if you can wrestle.

If you can't it becomes a 90/10 as soon as I clinch so I need one opening to finish the fight and when I get that. I am constantly being made safer and putting you at risk. So the longer I clinch the less chance you have of knocking me out and more chance of me taking you to the floor. On the floor the odds stack up against the striker again.

Striking it only becomes 90/10 if you are seriously rocked otherwise every exchange has the opportunity for me to nail you with a shot and regain momentum. Or in grapple vs strike clinch and gain that momentum.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 24, 2014)

drop bear said:


> They train and try to prevent.
> 
> Grappling tends to beat striking. From my experience anecdotally but as to the mechanics of why. I have not been able to come up with a good explanation.
> 
> ...



Depends who is doing the striking though doesn't it.

What if the person doing the striking was able to generate force from positions you did not think was possible or had not counted on.
Because that is what Wing Chun does.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Do all the grappling arts train by getting punched really hard in the face then trying to apply their techniques?
> 
> Or do they train tactics and techniques to try and prevent that from happening?



Now we try to compare the following 2 different training.

1. not to get punched on the head.
2. not to get clinched. 

Here is a simple test.

- A can only apply head shot while B can only apply clinch.
- If A can hit B's head first, A win that round. 
- If B can successfully obtain a valid clinch on A first, B wins that round.

Test this for 100 rounds and record the result. I had tested this so many times, the final result was always to B's favor. If you apply the right strategy (such as the rhino strategy), it's not that easy for your opponent to punch on your head. 

The grapplers do treat the "head shot" issue seriously and have solution for it. Does the strikers also treat the "clinch" issue *equal seriously* and have similar solution for it?

If anybody can write a book or publish a DVD that have "Strategy against Clinch", that person's name will be famous in the TMA history forever.


----------



## geezer (Sep 24, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Now we try to compare the following 2 different training.
> 
> 1. not to get punched on the head.
> 2. not to get clinched.
> ...



John, I like your idea of "testing" various approaches, but the 100% "either/or" test you propose here is so artificial as to be _useless._ Stand-up/striking arts set up their strikes with a variety of _other techniques_. To say that the "puncher" can _only_ punch is absurd,  just as is saying that the grappler can _never _punch. Such a scenario has nothing to do with any kind of a real fighting exchange.

Furthermore you say that you have done this test many times. I don't doubt it, but recognizing that you have very extensive grappling experience (shuai chiao) and your opponents are probably not strikers of equal experience, the results will be biased. Especially under the artificial conditions imposed by your "test". 

Now take the "rhino" or "big fist" defense as shown in that clip you like to post. The striker is behaving in a totally unrealistic manner trying to punch around that ponderous wedge structure used by the defender. Any fighter unfettered by the rules of the drill would grab, check, or otherwise knock aside that clumsy "big-fist" structure to make way for his punch. We certainly would do that in Wing Chun, and I can't believe that other styles would do something similar. Strikers aren't all vulnerable idiots you know!


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Depends who is doing the striking though doesn't it.
> 
> What if the person doing the striking was able to generate force from positions you did not think was possible or had not counted on.
> Because that is what Wing Chun does.



Striking isnt done by magic. There are consistent elements that come into play.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Striking isnt done by magic. There are consistent elements that come into play.



Who's talking about magic , magics got nothing to do with it.

What is has got to do with however , is having a decent stance to generate power from and having various stuctures in the proper alignment in which to properly transmit that force into the target.

No magic , just a high degree of skill.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Who's talking about magic , magics got nothing to do with it.
> 
> What is has got to do with however , is having a decent stance to generate power from and having various stuctures in the proper alignment in which to properly transmit that force into the target.
> 
> No magic , just a high degree of skill.



And so are predictable and counterable. It is not a trick nobody else knows.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And so are predictable and counterable. It is not a trick nobody else knows.



Well obviously they don't know it , or otherwise everybody would be able to do a 1 inch punch now wouldn't they.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Well obviously they don't know it , or otherwise everybody would be able to do a 1 inch punch now wouldn't they.



How long does it take to learn? One of my coaches up at the moment is an ex wing chun guy. So I imagine he could throw one inch punches at me if he wanted to.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> How long does it take to learn? One of my coaches up at the moment is an ex wing chun guy. So I imagine he could throw one inch punches at me if he wanted to.



Well , I have been training in Wing Chun since July of 1989 and I am still perfecting mine.
It is an ongoing process , there is no time when you say I have now "arrived".

You could see in the video I posted of my late Master , he was still getting tips on doing it properly from his Master , and my Master had already been training for 40 years.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> John, I like your idea of "testing" various approaches, but the 100% "either/or" test you propose here is so artificial as to be _useless._ Stand-up/striking arts set up their strikes with a variety of _other techniques_. To say that the "puncher" can _only_ punch is absurd, just as is saying that the grappler can _never _punch. Such a scenario has nothing to do with any kind of a real fighting exchange.
> 
> Furthermore you say that you have done this test many times. I don't doubt it, but recognizing that you have very extensive grappling experience (shuai chiao) and your opponents are probably not strikers of equal experience, the results will be biased. Especially under the artificial conditions imposed by your "test".
> 
> Now take the "rhino" or "big fist" defense as shown in that clip you like to post. The striker is behaving in a totally unrealistic manner trying to punch around that ponderous wedge structure used by the defender. Any fighter unfettered by the rules of the drill would grab, check, or otherwise knock aside that clumsy "big-fist" structure to make way for his punch. We certainly would do that in Wing Chun, and I can't believe that other styles would do something similar. Strikers aren't all vulnerable idiots you know!



I think that belief was backed up by the results of NHB tournaments like Vale Tudo and UFC where grappling arts tended to dominate striking/standing arts. This in turn caused striking arts to be forced into developing answers for grapplers, which is where those absurd "Anti-grappling" techniques come from. 

Before that, striking arts like Wing Chun didn't care about ground fighting or grappling at all. Brazilian Jiujitsu and similar arts showed how dominating that strategy can be against an unprepared opponent.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I think that belief was backed up by the results of NHB tournaments like Vale Tudo and UFC where grappling arts tended to dominate striking/standing arts. This in turn caused striking arts to be forced into developing answers for grapplers, which is where those absurd "Anti-grappling" techniques come from.
> 
> Before that, striking arts like Wing Chun didn't care about ground fighting or grappling at all. Brazilian Jiujitsu and similar arts showed how dominating that strategy can be against an unprepared opponent.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are entitled to your opinion and your perspective..
However, your categorization of wing chun is uninformed.
Ip Man's wingchun is not just a striking art. It emphasizes control
and doing what can be done at any given moment.
The few wing chunners in UFC were doing pretty bad wing chun.

On a civil forum like this best to state each other's perspectives and then move on.


----------



## geezer (Sep 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I think that belief was backed up by the results of NHB tournaments like Vale Tudo and UFC where grappling arts tended to dominate striking/standing arts. This in turn caused striking arts to be forced into developing answers for grapplers, which is where those absurd "Anti-grappling" techniques come from.
> 
> Before that, striking arts like Wing Chun didn't care about ground fighting or grappling at all. Brazilian Jiujitsu and similar arts showed how dominating that strategy can be against an unprepared opponent.



_Hanzou, _I think what you say has a lot of truth to it. And over time, strikers in MMA bouts have been forced to cross train and become better all round fighters. Also, I'd agree that back in the 70s and 80s a lot of WC people didn't pay serious attention to ground fighting. So when BJJ came along and shook up the martial arts scene, some of those guys were left scrambling for answers. And sometimes came up with some pretty poor ones. However, as Vajramusti  points out, this doesn't mean that WC doesn't have concepts that can be applied to ground work. It simply means that few had the knowledge of how to make that transition. 

BTW I still think Johns "test" for striking vs grappling is pretty unrealistic. Whats wrong with looking at actual bouts? Now if you want to discuss why grappling can be so dominant, I thought _Drop Bear _had some really interesting ideas about this.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Sep 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Where's the incorrect assumption?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



all this is just BJJ basics incorporated with some wing chun hand techniques. it might only work against someone who has no training, but I can assure you none of it will work on an intermediate BJJ student or a decent high school wrestler.

This in more in line with pure WCK way of thinking


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 25, 2014)

Those videos are silly.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 25, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> all this is just BJJ basics incorporated with some wing chun hand techniques. it might only work against someone who has no training, but I can assure you none of it will work on an intermediate BJJ student or a decent high school wrestler.



None of that is Bjj basics. That is watching a video on Bjj or MMA and then coming up with nonsensical methods of ground fighting. If you actually learn Bjj basics, you wouldn't come up with that nonsense in the first place.



> This in more in line with pure WCK way of thinking



That crap is just as bad as the crap I posted.


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> all this is just BJJ basics incorporated with some wing chun hand techniques. it might only work against someone who has no training, but I can assure you none of it will work on an intermediate BJJ student or a decent high school wrestler.
> 
> This in more in line with pure WCK way of thinking


Fun fact.  At 1:29 in the first video, he could easily execute what is called  "Tripod" sweep in BJJ, reverse his position and come up on top, either to pass guard or stand up where he wants to be.  Instead, because he knows no actual grappling, he remains on his back, in a position that you guys say you NEVER EVER want to be in.  He'd need to control the ankle and then pretty much execute the sweep.  




You can see in the image above, the point of execution and the similarity with the position in the video.

View attachment $tripod sweep.jpg


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2014)

Steve said:


> Fun fact.  At 1:29 in the first video, he could easily execute what is called  "Tripod" sweep in BJJ, reverse his position and come up on top, either to pass guard or stand up where he wants to be.  Instead, because he knows no actual grappling, he remains on his back, in a position that you guys say you NEVER EVER want to be in.  He'd need to control the ankle and then pretty much execute the sweep.
> 
> View attachment 18944
> 
> ...



Yep , and if your close enough to grab his ankle , he's also close enough to bend down and punch your head into the concrete.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Yep , and if your close enough to grab his ankle , he's also close enough to bend down and punch your head into the concrete.



I'd like to know how you'd be able to do that when your leg is planted into their hip, you're obstructing their rear leg, and you have control of one of their arms....


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Well , I have been training in Wing Chun since July of 1989 and I am still perfecting mine.
> It is an ongoing process , there is no time when you say I have now "arrived".
> 
> You could see in the video I posted of my late Master , he was still getting tips on doing it properly from his Master , and my Master had already been training for 40 years.



So it takes years to get right And it seems to take thirty seconds of aiming before you can fire it off. Honestly not the biggest threat


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Yep , and if your close enough to grab his ankle , he's also close enough to bend down and punch your head into the concrete.



It is a fight. You may get punched. But yeah we use that sweep and we allow the head punching.


----------



## geezer (Sep 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So it takes years to get right And it seems to take thirty seconds of aiming before you can fire it off. Honestly not the biggest threat



_Correction:_ First, let's de-mystify things a bit and use the generic term "short-power". You can find it in Western boxing, Chinese boxing ("kung fu") Filipino boxing (FMA "cadena de mano") and just about any other well developed striking system. It takes years for _some of us _(me, for example) to get it right. Others develop surprisingly explosive "short power" early on. And yeah, they can be a _big_ threat. My old Escrima instructor learned it from his Filipino coach as a teen and later used it very effectively as a boxer in the U.S. Airforce.

Of course "short power" alone isn't enough. But it's a great tool in the context of a good fighting system.


----------



## Argus (Sep 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So it takes years to get right And it seems to take thirty seconds of aiming before you can fire it off. Honestly not the biggest threat



You're awfully quick to poke fun at something you don't understand. I've met both Wing Chun and Xingyi practitioners who demonstrated very good short distance power -- not just as a parlour trick, but in free application, and both with and without any pretense of exhibiting it in the first place. It's neither a parlour trick, nor some unattainable magic that takes decades of practice. It's just takes simple practice; practice which, honestly, most practitioners really tend to neglect and don't spend enough time on to be confident their ability to hit that way. And, that's a category in which I might include myself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> I still think Johns "test" for striking vs grappling is pretty unrealistic.



If we include the following into the test:

1. body shot - the moment that you punch at your opponent's chest, your head will be exposed for his head lock.
2. parry - the moment that your arm touch your opponent's big fist, the moment that he can separate his arms and wrap your parrying arm.
3. kick - the moment that you kick at your opponent, the moment that he can grab you leg.
- ...

Your testing result will include too many factors. It will be more than just a test for "head punch vs. clinch". It will be a test for "kick/punch vs. clinch". IMO, both tests will be needed. One should start from simple and move into complicate.


----------



## Argus (Sep 25, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we include the following into the test:
> 
> 1. body shot - the moment that you punch at your opponent's chest, your head will be exposed for his head lock.
> 2. parry - the moment that your arm touch your opponent's big fist, the moment that he can separate his arms and wrap your parrying arm.
> ...



I think you're over doing it on the numbered lists and "A vs B" statements.

Earlier, I just described a technique whereby I like to wrap a grappler's arm while striking his neck and controlling his head. I don't have to be a grappler to control my opponent or utilize locks; nor would I really call that "grappling" when you maintain effective striking distance. You seem to be under the impression that only a grappler can utilize control, and that a striker is therefore at his mercy.

The world isn't so black and white.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> _Correction:_ First, let's de-mystify things a bit and use the generic term "short-power". You can find it in Western boxing, Chinese boxing ("kung fu") Filipino boxing (FMA "cadena de mano") and just about any other well developed striking system. It takes years for _some of us _(me, for example) to get it right. Others develop surprisingly explosive "short power" early on. And yeah, they can be a _big_ threat. My old Escrima instructor learned it from his Filipino coach as a teen and later used it very effectively as a boxer in the U.S. Airforce.
> 
> Of course "short power" alone isn't enough. But it's a great tool in the context of a good fighting system.



Of course you find it in other striking systems. It is not exactly a super secret. But that was what was being argued. That this is some sort of wing chun super move.

I just thought I would go along with the idea. Given that even though one of my coaches is an ex wing chun guy even he was not open to the mysteries of the one inch punch.

But yeah parlour tricks. The short power isn't. The one inch punch knocking you into backflips is. And I have met William Chung I originally came from Melbourne. My mum used to do kung fu with them.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc-Fgc7nRdE


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Yep , and if your close enough to grab his ankle , he's also close enough to bend down and punch your head into the concrete.



That's actually not true, and if you knew the technique, you'd know why.  With the foot on the hip, you wouldn't be able to reach my head.   The only direction you could really go and not get immediately swept is back, to base out and also work to free the wrist.  

You're being ridiculously defensive.  You're contradicting yourself and speaking of things about which you are obviously, completely ignorant.   

The goal, understandably, is to return to your feet.  I get that.  If you want to do that, in the video, an opportunity is there.  It's obvious to any competent grappler.  It's like a neon sign.   But if you're not a grappler , you just don't know.   The answer isn't to make stuff up and get defensive.   It's to learn a little grappling.   

Once again, you don't need to be a black belt.   I'm a purple belt and That's a technique I'm very comfortable executing against people who are fighting back.   It works in a Gi or clothing and also works well no Gi.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 25, 2014)

Argus said:


> I don't have to be a grappler to control my opponent or utilize locks; nor would I really call that "grappling" when you maintain effective striking distance. You seem to be under the impression that only a grappler can utilize control, and that a striker is therefore at his mercy.



Of course a striker can 

- control his opponent's arm,
- pull his opponent's body into him, and
- knock his opponent out with a powerful punch.

A clinch (or control) can always give you a chance for your knock out punch. There is no argument on that. But since your single arm can only control one of your opponent's arms. As long as you try to have a free arm to punch, your opponent will always have a free arm to deal with your punch. Since a grappler has no intention to punch you. He can afford to use both arms to control your arms/body.

In some wrestling game, you try to get a clinch but your opponent refuses. When that happen, you will just 

- give up your offensive, 
- play your defensive, and 
- let your opponent to get clinch on you. 

From a grappler's point of view, A clinch is a clinch. Whether you make it happen, or your opponent makes it happen, it won't make any difference one way or another. What will happen after that depends on individual's skill level.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 25, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> if your close enough to grab his ankle , he's also close enough to bend down and punch your head into the concrete.



Not sure you are talking about the stand up game or the ground game. 

In stand up game, when you try to "grab your opponent's ankle", you will do the following:

- hook your foot behind his ankle,
- push his shoulder,
- when his foot comes up from the ground, you then grab that ankle.

Your shoulder push will force your opponent's body to bend backward (otherwise his foot will not come off the ground). When you do that, he will have no chance to punch at your head.

In the following clip, you can see that

- right hand control right wrist,
- left hand control right elbow,
- right hand push right shoulder.

In the whole process, your opponent's leading arm will have no chance to punch your head. Since you also use his leading arm to jam his back arm, his back arm can't punch your head either. In other words, your opponent's head shot is already under your consideration. Otherwise you will not apply your "ankle pick".

Not to get punched on the head should be the number one priority for all grapplers.


----------



## geezer (Sep 25, 2014)

Steve said:


> Fun fact.  At 1:29 in the first video, he could easily execute what is called  "Tripod" sweep in BJJ, reverse his position and come up on top, either to pass guard or stand up where he wants to be.  Instead, because he knows no actual grappling, he remains on his back, in a position that you guys say you NEVER EVER want to be in.  He'd need to control the ankle and then pretty much execute the sweep.
> 
> View attachment 18944
> 
> ...



Steve, I can't speak for the guy in the WC video, but you're right about the similarity of these two positions. Also in the inherent efficiency of the way the BJJ guy sticks to and controls his opponent after executing the Tripod sweep. But you are really looking at this like a grappler. That particular WC guy is still coming from a striker's perspective even when on his back. He is trying to use percussive techniques to injure and disable his opponent, after which he presumably would use a thrusting kick to create distance so he could stand up. 

As a grappler this seems odd to you, even illogical. And in a way it is. You'd think a WC guy would want to "stick" to his opponent and maintain control. After all, grappling is sort of like full body chi-sau right? But _not_ for somebody who isn't comfortable with it. If being on the ground is alien to you, you will just want to kick the other guy away from you. And if that fails you are  really up a creek. I'm not much of a grappler, and even I can see this. 

I really feel that WC and some _quality_ grappling experience complement each other beautifully. If only I were 20 or 30 years younger....


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> Steve, I can't speak for the guy in the WC video, but you're right about the similarity of these two positions. Also in the inherent efficiency of the way the BJJ guy sticks to and controls his opponent after executing the Tripod sweep. But you are really looking at this like a grappler. That particular WC guy is still coming from a striker's perspective even when on his back. He is trying to use percussive techniques to injure and disable his opponent, after which he presumably would use a thrusting kick to create distance so he could stand up.
> 
> As a grappler this seems odd to you, even illogical. And in a way it is. You'd think a WC guy would want to "stick" to his opponent and maintain control. After all, grappling is sort of like full body chi-sau right? But _not_ for somebody who isn't comfortable with it. If being on the ground is alien to you, you will just want to kick the other guy away from you. And if that fails you are  really up a creek. I'm not much of a grappler, and even I can see this.



You don't need to be a grappler to see that the WC's guy answer to that situation is illogical, and frankly quite silly. Consider how much time and effort it took for the WC guy to achieve the exact same position that Bjj achieved in a single move. Bjj's answer is efficient, and has a higher chance of success than attempting to lay on your back, and maintain enough control over your opponent to beat them into submission with kicks and punches, all while maintaining control of their wrist. 

My other issue with this vid is again showing "anti-grappling" from a state of positional dominance. Why do you need anti-grappling when you've already achieved side control? It makes no sense. The attacker should be in side control, and the anti-grappler should be trying to get out of side control.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> Steve, I can't speak for the guy in the WC video, but you're right about the similarity of these two positions. Also in the inherent efficiency of the way the BJJ guy sticks to and controls his opponent after executing the Tripod sweep. But you are really looking at this like a grappler. That particular WC guy is still coming from a striker's perspective even when on his back. He is trying to use percussive techniques to injure and disable his opponent, after which he presumably would use a thrusting kick to create distance so he could stand up.
> 
> As a grappler this seems odd to you, even illogical. And in a way it is. You'd think a WC guy would want to "stick" to his opponent and maintain control. After all, grappling is sort of like full body chi-sau right? But _not_ for somebody who isn't comfortable with it. If being on the ground is alien to you, you will just want to kick the other guy away from you. And if that fails you are  really up a creek. I'm not much of a grappler, and even I can see this.
> 
> I really feel that WC and some _quality_ grappling experience complement each other beautifully. If only I were 20 or 30 years younger....



Why would you come from a strikers perspective if you are on your back?

Do strikers fair particularly well from their backs? Have you ever seen striking done well from their backs?

There are strikes that work and bycicle kicks have their place. But seriously you would have to go to the guys who can fight off their backs to get tactics for fighting there. Throw comfort out the window. Throw your system out the window. Pre conceived notions dont help.take an idea. Test it a bunch of times. It will either work or it won't. All the "well technically it should work in principle" will not save a technique that does not work in practice.

That is where you get your anti grapple from.

And there is nothing stopping you standing up after you have swept the guy.

If you stay on your back you are going to get taken to pieces by the guy with a decent top game. The Gracie's tried it and guys like sakuraba figured out how to defeat it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6khZnrh4RE


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It is a fight. You may get punched. But yeah we use that sweep and we allow the head punching.



Ok , so you do get punched from this attempted sweeping position.

Then maybe wouldn't it make a little more sense , to keep both your feet pointed straight towards him so he can't even get to your head at all.
And use both your legs to keep him at bay and blast kicks into his knees , shins , and groin

Why stuff around trying to even grab the arm , or grab the leg?
Both of your strongest weapons are already pointed at him , why not use them for something other than placing them in his hip.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I'd like to know how you'd be able to do that when your leg is planted into their hip, you're obstructing their rear leg, and you have control of one of their arms....



Your assuming that you could get control of that arm , might be easy to latch onto the sleeve of a gi.

Not so easy with no sleeve , or maybe even blood or sweat on the arms.
There is also the issue of if there is a size disparity , can you still get your leg up high enough to control the hip if the opponent is significantly taller than you so as to prevent him from hitting you.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> Steve, I can't speak for the guy in the WC video, but you're right about the similarity of these two positions. Also in the inherent efficiency of the way the BJJ guy sticks to and controls his opponent after executing the Tripod sweep. But you are really looking at this like a grappler. That particular WC guy is still coming from a striker's perspective even when on his back. He is trying to use percussive techniques to injure and disable his opponent, after which he presumably would use a thrusting kick to create distance so he could stand up.
> 
> As a grappler this seems odd to you, even illogical. And in a way it is. You'd think a WC guy would want to "stick" to his opponent and maintain control. After all, grappling is sort of like full body chi-sau right? But _not_ for somebody who isn't comfortable with it. If being on the ground is alien to you, you will just want to kick the other guy away from you. And if that fails you are  really up a creek. I'm not much of a grappler, and even I can see this.
> 
> I really feel that WC and some _quality_ grappling experience complement each other beautifully. If only I were 20 or 30 years younger....



This is exactly what I'm saying, geezer.   If the idea is to get up so you can run away or at least get back to the range of fighting you are most comfortable with, WC "grappling" is suspect st best.   

The guy "teaching" is very obviously making things up, and in doing so, he is creating unnecessary risk for his students.  In bjj, we say you have to leave your ego at the door.   Ego is where this kind of self delusion comes into play.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Ok , so you do get punched from this attempted sweeping position.
> 
> Then maybe wouldn't it make a little more sense , to keep both your feet pointed straight towards him so he can't even get to your head at all.
> And use both your legs to keep him at bay and blast kicks into his knees , shins , and groin
> ...


The chances of that against an untrained opponent, such as both of the guys in the video, are nil.  Sure, there is a counter to every technique, and a counter to every counter.  So, theoretically, there are ways for the top guy to defend the sweep and punch the guy on the bottom.  But, that's someone with at least a little training.  YOU?  You couldn't punch anyone from that position, because you demonstrate over and over that you're making things up, and/or defending techniques that are clearly fantasy.  You wouldn't punch anyone because you would find yourself swept and in EXACTLY the position you don't want to be in: on the bottom defending yourself from your back.  

What makes more sense is, if you are in that position, use techniques that are reliable to get back to where you actually have some skill, ie, standing up.  That involves sweeping the bad guy so that you return to a more dominant position, allowing you to return to your feet and potentially disengage to run.   

REgarding the question, why even try to grab the arm, I kind of wonder that myself.  Ask the WC guy in your video.  I was commenting on what he was doing, not why.  He had wrist control, and was also creating and controlling the range with his legs.  But, your question raises another question, if your opponent isn't controlling you in some way, and you aren't controlling your opponent in some way, why not simply stand up?  Of course, there are dumb ways to do this, but you wouldn't know that because you are functionally incompetent on the ground.  I really mean this without any malice at all.  Your ego is blinding you.  

The entire idea of WC grappling is as ridiculous as the idea of BJJ chi sau.  I would never presume to suggest that BJJ could chi sau better than a WC guy.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> _*Why would you come from a strikers perspective if you are on your back?
> 
> Do strikers fair particularly well from their backs? Have you ever seen striking done well from their backs?*
> _



Umm , because you can still strike from your back , they are called kicks.
Particularly relevant when you are on your back and someone is standing .
Great for targeting the lower legs and the groin.

Let's get into the fair dinkum department for a minute.
True story , about 8 years ago now , my missus was attacked on the street by a guy with a knife , to cut a long story short he wanted her hand bag and she didn't want to give it to him.

This maggot pushed her to the ground , at that point in time my wife had only had very minimal and haphazard Wing Chun training over 2 years , but she knew how to do stamp kicks from the ground.

Anyway , he continues to try and get the bag off her , he gets frustrated and slashes down at her with the knife , she brings up her arm in a Dai Sau to block , she then stamp kicked him in the lead shin three times in quick succession.

He had to abort his little mission because he was in so much pain he could hardly stand , she got off the ground and ran away and left him to stagger off to his waiting get away car.
This bastard who was never caught by the way , probably outweighed my wife by about 50 kgs.

She was left with a 4 cm scar on her outer forearm from a defensive cut that is still visible to this day.
If she didn't know how to target the shins with kicks she might have died that day.

So don't come on here and bloody tell us that kicks from the ground don't work , they might not be that effective in sports grappling land where no one wears shoes.
But out in the real world where you have shoes on , and you have the know how to to do these kicks properly , they work just fine.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Your assuming that you could get control of that arm , might be easy to latch onto the sleeve of a gi.



You don't need control of the arm/sleeve to perform that sweep, as demonstrated in this nogi variation that leads to an ankle lock;

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOtW-nJkYZ8[/video]




> Not so easy with no sleeve , or maybe even blood or sweat on the arms.



Indeed.....


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You don't need control of the arm/sleeve to perform that sweep, as demonstrated in this nogi variation that leads to an ankle lock;
> 
> [video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOtW-nJkYZ8[/video]
> 
> ...



Oh for God's sake , he has both his feet in his hips.
He would only have to straighten both his legs out sharply and launch that guy into a wall.

No need for the rest of the stuff.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Oh for God's sake , he has both his feet in his hips.
> He would only have to straighten both his legs out sharply and launch that guy into a wall.
> 
> No need for the rest of the stuff.



He places both feet on the hips to stop his opponent's advance, then he quickly enters the sweep. 

In the end, the point is that the sweep is a more realistic counter in that situation than attempting to beat a standing opponent down while you're on your back.

Launch the guy into a wall? I'm starting to think you're not being serious.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Oh for God's sake , he has both his feet in his hips.
> He would only have to straighten both his legs out sharply and launch that guy into a wall.
> 
> No need for the rest of the stuff.



What if your opponent is based out?   You're the dude who goes on and on about stance and being rooted.   You can't keep your stories straight.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yak sao (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> The entire idea of WC grappling is as ridiculous as the idea of BJJ chi sau.  I would never presume to suggest that BJJ could chi sau better than a WC guy.



Which is precisely why WC uses an "anti grappling" approach.
Is a bazooka equal to a tank? No, it's simply an anti-tank method that a foot soldier uses in a desperate situation.

How is an anti grappling approach any different?
We know that the ground is no place to be...why do I want to stay in a grappling scenario with someone who is obviously better at it than I am.
I would do that no more than I would trade punches with a golden gloves boxer or leg kicks with a Thai boxer.

Everyone seems to be all bent out of shape because they think we are saying we can beat any and all grapplers because we are calling it _anti grappling. "_Anti" simply means to oppose, to fight against. It's a way of a WC man trying to level the playing field a bit when he ends up on the ground so he can survive the situation and regain his feet.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> What if your opponent is based out?   You're the dude who goes on and on about stance and being rooted.   You can't keep your stories straight.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Based out means his legs are apart , kick him in the groin then.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Which is precisely why WC uses an "anti grappling" approach.
> Is a bazooka equal to a tank? No, it's simply an anti-tank method that a foot soldier uses in a desperate situation.
> 
> How is an anti grappling approach any different?
> ...



Anti-grappling implies that you're using this against a grappler. If it was called Wing Chun Groundfighting, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. However, this is being advertised as something to do against an opponent attempting to grapple with you. Considering that I've seen videos where they're actually fighting someone in guard position, its pretty clear that they're including Bjj in that group as well.

If you want to learn how to fight on the ground, learn from someone who actually knows what they're doing. The spirits of the dead Wing Chun grandmasters won't kill you if you do a little cross-training.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If you want to learn how to fight on the ground, learn from someone who actually knows what they're doing. The spirits of the dead Wing Chun grandmasters won't kill you if you do a little cross-training.


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

Your comments imo may apply to some wing chun folks and not others.

The structure and dynamics of good wing chun provides solutions to grapplers coming in and if you happen to be on the ground.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Anti-grappling implies that you're using this against a grappler. If it was called Wing Chun Groundfighting, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. However, this is being advertised as something to do against an opponent attempting to grapple with you. Considering that I've seen videos where they're actually fighting someone in guard position, its pretty clear that they're including Bjj in that group as well.
> 
> If you want to learn how to fight on the ground, learn from someone who actually knows what they're doing. The spirits of the dead Wing Chun grandmasters won't kill you if you do a little cross-training.



Yes we do some things against BJJ type of attacks because that is a very effective form of grappling, we would be stupid to ignore it in the hopes that we're never put on the ground by a BJJ fighter.

The thing is, I like Wing Tsun. I don't desire to cross train. I have no time as it is to train WT as I would like. So why should I cross train a little grappling to delude myself into thinking that I can now grapple with the big boys.

The approach I choose to take instead is test my WT against people who do know how to grapple. I have several buddies who train judo, BJJ, catch wrestling, etc.  It's the same approach I take to dealing with boxers. I have a couple of friends who box, so we get together when we can and glove up...not so I can out box him, that would get my *** kicked in a hurry. But so I can test my WT against what he does.....anti boxing....*GASP*


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> So don't come on here and bloody tell us that kicks from the ground don't work , they might not be that effective in sports grappling land where no one wears shoes.
> But out in the real world where you have shoes on , and you have the know how to to do these kicks properly , they work just fine.



For the record, kicks from the ground are an excellent tool. I teach them, I use them, and I recently had a student of mine use them effectively for fending off a knife-wielding robber. I primarily teach them as a tactic for establishing distance to safely regain your feet, but they can be fight-enders.

They don't _always _work. Depending on your opponent's stance and tactics, it can sometimes be a lot safer to use an open guard to protect yourself and reverse the position.

With regard to the video linked earlier, my concern is that the instructor was applying his control, kicks, and sweep in an inefficient and low-percentage manner, with lots of little details off that left him way more open for getting hurt than is necessary. If he had just kept his legs coiled up and kicked for his opponent's shins and groin every time he came near, I wouldn't complain.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Ok , so you do get punched from this attempted sweeping position.
> 
> Then maybe wouldn't it make a little more sense , to keep both your feet pointed straight towards him so he can't even get to your head at all.
> And use both your legs to keep him at bay and blast kicks into his knees , shins , and groin
> ...



I am not safe from being punched while bycicle kicking either. And because in a kick off he controls the range and so has the advantage.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Yes we do some things against BJJ type of attacks because that is a very effective form of grappling, we would be stupid to ignore it in the hopes that we're never put on the ground by a BJJ fighter.
> 
> The thing is, I like Wing Tsun. I don't desire to cross train. I have no time as it is to train WT as I would like. So why should I cross train a little grappling to delude myself into thinking that I can now grapple with the big boys.
> 
> The approach I choose to take instead is test my WT against people who do know how to grapple. I have several buddies who train judo, BJJ, catch wrestling, etc.  It's the same approach I take to dealing with boxers. I have a couple of friends who box, so we get together when we can and glove up...not so I can out box him, that would get my *** kicked in a hurry. But so I can test my WT against what he does.....anti boxing....*GASP*



And there's nothing wrong with that.

The *problem* arises when you proclaim to be an expert, and begin marketing your solutions to the public as true methods to fight off grapplers. You rake in money while teaching people garbage that has little practical application in the real world. That's what these guys are doing, and that's why they deserve the ridicule they're getting.

If you wish to only study Wing Chun, more power to you. However, if you're concerned that you may be at a disadvantage against a grappler, keep doing what you're doing with your grappler friends, or go learn some grappling yourself. The very fact that you're actually working out with grapplers put you well ahead of the bozos in those vids.


----------



## Buka (Sep 26, 2014)

You guys may need to pound the keys harder. Maybe that will settle the arguement.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Your comments imo may apply to some wing chun folks and not others.
> 
> The structure and dynamics of good wing chun provides solutions to grapplers coming in and if you happen to be on the ground.



So the good Wing Chun practitioners don't make Youtube instructional videos?


----------



## Argus (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So the good Wing Chun practitioners don't make Youtube instructional videos?



I thought I posted a few, but I guess they don't count.

Really, it seems like everyone is only interested in arguing at this point. My answer is "STFU and train" -- Train Wing Chun. Train grappling. Train Wing Chun against grapplers. Any unrealistic notions will be quickly dispelled, and you'll get far more benefit than you will from arguing notions and semantics on the internet. And just maybe, dispel ignorance on both sides of the issue.

From reading this thread, I can't help but marvel that elitism among grapplers is just as bad as elitism among WC practitioners. Put them together, and you have some awful stubborn head butting going on. Or you know, a very well rounded fighter, if you can get past that first bit.


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So the good Wing Chun practitioners don't make Youtube instructional videos?



Quite so. Neither Yak, Joy (Vajramusti), Mook, nor I have made any such anti-grappling videos yet, so there's proof!  

_Hanzou_, you have to realize that some WC "enterpreneurs" have a lot vested in marketing WC as the "ultimate" martial art with an answer for every situation. So they market this stuff to any who will buy it. It's all about business and ego.

I have a different view. I have students who are not grapplers and never will be. They seem innately uncomfortable rolling on the ground. I don't fully understand it, since even though I'm not skilled, I think it's a total blast. Anyway, that's the way they are, so I try to show them a few simple things they can do to survive a fall, sweep or throw, to keep from getting mounted or to escape a mount, and to create distance and stand up again.

I guess you could consider this a low level "self defense course" for the ground-fighting impared WC stylist. Just like any crash-course in self-defense, it has serious limitations. In a few classes can you really train a timid and fearful 110 lb. woman with no long-term interest in martial arts how to defend herself against a large aggressive street-thug?  Probably not (although _Mook's_ wife apparently came out OK).

So, in a short time can you really train a "ground fighting impared" WC student how to survive when taken down? _Maybe._ But I'm not placing bets on it. I've had other students who really take to ground fighting.  What I know is too limited, so I refer them to another gym (run by a friend) that has some great grappling coaches. And, funny thing, I've never lost the respect of a student by admitting my limitations and referring them to another coach.


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2014)

Argus said:


> ...From reading this thread, I can't help but marvel that elitism among grapplers is just as bad as elitism among WC practitioners. Put them together, and you have some awful stubborn head butting going on. Or you know, a very well rounded fighter, if you can get past that first bit.



Hey, it's all just human nature. But by comparison to some of the heated arguments and outright character assassination on another WC forum I used to frequent, this lively discussion is pretty enjoyable. I actually learn stuff here!


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Which is precisely why WC uses an "anti grappling" approach.
> Is a bazooka equal to a tank? No, it's simply an anti-tank method that a foot soldier uses in a desperate situation.
> 
> How is an anti grappling approach any different?
> ...



I think you're completely missing what I think.  I totally understand that there is a specific emphasis and philosophy that you have which is different than in a grappling tournament or MMA match.   The problem isn't the philosophy.  It's the dangerously unrealistic techniques and pugnacious refusal to accept sound technical advice that gets me.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yak sao (Sep 26, 2014)

which is why I try this stuff out on actual grapplers and get their feedback


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> Quite so. Neither Yak, Joy (Vajramusti), Mook, nor I have made any such anti-grappling videos yet, so there's proof!
> 
> _Hanzou_, you have to realize that some WC "enterpreneurs" have a lot vested in marketing WC as the "ultimate" martial art with an answer for every situation. So they market this stuff to any who will buy it. It's all about business and ego.
> 
> ...



Again, the problem isn't you guys, or your art. The problem are those charlatans sullying the art of Wing Chun with that anti-grappling crap. You have the confidence and humility to admit that you don't have all the answers, so you allow your students to explore other possibilities to get those answers.

The guys in those videos aren't doing that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2014)

Most of the "anti-grappling" discussion are in the "ground game". We also include the "stand up game" as well such as how to counter a 

- Judo guy's "hip throw", or 
- wrestler's "single leg".

After all, you do have to take your opponent down before you can play your ground game.  IMO, a striker should worry about the "stand up game" before he should worry about the "ground game".


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 26, 2014)

A sensible post. If you don't have top level wing chun stand up game-the rest wont matter.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

yak sao said:


> which is why I try this stuff out on actual grapplers and get their feedback



Really?   Mook has categorically denied that this is possible.  I think you're being very sensible to do this, but surely you can understand my confusion when you guys say exactly the opposite.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 26, 2014)

Buka said:


> You guys may need to pound the keys harder. Maybe that will settle the arguement.



Chain typing?

My money's on the WC guys.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 26, 2014)

Steve said:


> Really?   Mook has categorically denied that this is possible.  I think you're being very sensible to do this, but surely you can understand my confusion when you guys say exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You seem to have a quite the talent for twisting peoples words around don't you.

There is a level of trust involved with sparring with unknown people , the guys Yak trains with are probably acquaintances and probably come to his Kwoon , they trust him not to elbow strike them in the face , and he trusts them not to snap his arm off or choke him out.

Just a little bit different than walking into a random MMA gym as the Kung Fu guy isn't it.

In my experience of sparring people from other styles they never acknowledge the strikes , hell most of the time they don't even see them , so to make them see where they have been got you have to start hitting them for real , which never ever ends well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2014)

If you have good throwing resistance skill, it's not that easy for your opponent to take you down. To remain standing should still be a striker's highest priority.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 26, 2014)

agree


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 26, 2014)

That is a problem mook.

A grappler can go full power. In "playing" a puncher often goes light- not wanting to lose a partner.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> You seem to have a quite the talent for twisting peoples words around don't you.
> 
> There is a level of trust involved with sparring with unknown people , the guys Yak trains with are probably acquaintances and probably come to his Kwoon , they trust him not to elbow strike them in the face , and he trusts them not to snap his arm off or choke him out.
> 
> ...



lol.  Whatever.  You are as much a fanboy as you claim to hate.  You have no trust because you have a distorted opinion based upon little more than you tube.  

It sounds now like other people can manage to spar.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> You seem to have a quite the talent for twisting peoples words around don't you.
> 
> There is a level of trust involved with sparring with unknown people , the guys Yak trains with are probably acquaintances and probably come to his Kwoon , they trust him not to elbow strike them in the face , and he trusts them not to snap his arm off or choke him out.
> 
> ...



Because you have to win at sparring?


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Because you have to win at sparring?


 No, I dot think that's what Mook's saying at all.

When you're doing light sparring there has to be some acknowledgement of the other guy's shots ...otherwise it just escalates. This can be more of a problem in striking arts than in grappling arts. When grappling you can often apply real force and accomplish your goals without causing each other damage. But still, sometimes you guys run into the same problem ...like some jerk you submit, but who _won't tap out _so you have to choose between actually hurting him or letting it go and forgetting about it. 

I'm a patient person, but people like that are a real pain!


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> No, I dot think that's what Mook's saying at all.
> 
> When you're doing light sparring there has to be some acknowledgement of the other guy's shots ...otherwise it just escalates. This can be more of a problem in striking arts than in grappling arts. When grappling you can often apply real force and accomplish your goals without causing each other damage. But still, sometimes you guys run into the same problem ...like some jerk you submit, but who _won't tap out _so you have to choose between actually hurting him or letting it go and forgetting about it.
> 
> I'm a patient person, but people like that are a real pain!



No there really doesn't. It is sparring not play acting. So if it is light you accept that the shots won break a guys composure. Otherwise you go hard and deal with the reality of hard shots. Which is the risk someone will get bashed. Otherwise you just deal with it. Learn to fire shots into a guy that may not cower and cringe from them.

Same as if a guy won't tap. Yes you let it go. Or you do better submissions. Not spazzier ones. Sometimes he takes advantage of you. Boo hoo. What is the worst that will happen? You get subbed by a guy who is technically worse but took advantage of you giving him an even break.

Ground and pound this happens a bit because you pin the guy and then fire sensible shots to his head. He can quite often ignore them to try to escape.

There is something fundamentally wrong with your approach to this.

What you are describing is ego sparring. And you will never get a good reception in any gym if you go in and pull that. That is the reason you find yourself matched with a top fighter who will give you a lesson in humility.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> This can be more of a problem in striking arts than in grappling arts. When grappling you can often apply real force and accomplish your goals without causing each other damage.


Agree! The striking art does have physical limitation. 

If a grappler takes his opponent down 

- 10 times daily, 
- in 1 year, he has taken his opponent down 3,650 times. 
- in 3 years, he has taken his opponent down more than 10,000 times.

That's a lot of record that he can build his lifetime confidence on top of it.

As a striker, how many times will you be able to knock your opponent down daily? If you have never knocked your opponent down in the past, how do you know that you can knock your opponent down in the future?


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The striking art does have physical limitation.
> 
> If a grappler takes his opponent down
> 
> ...


 ...or get knocked down daily without damaging your brain? 

Throws and grappling are plenty tough on the body but I'd rather end up kinda crippled-up when I'm old ...heck *I am *crippled up and old... rather than brain damaged or "punch drunk" like so many old boxers. And I'd much rather have my son get into wrestling or BJJ than boxing for the same reasons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> ...or get knocked down daily without damaging your brain?
> 
> Throws and grappling are plenty tough on the body but I'd rather end up kinda crippled-up when I'm old ...heck *I am *crippled up and old... rather than brain damaged or "punch drunk" like so many old boxers. And I'd much rather have my son get into wrestling or BJJ than boxing for the same reasons.



This is why I prefer 

- to be a grappler and train "anti-striking" strategy than 
- to be a striker and train "anti-grappling" strategy. 

Not to get punched on my head is the highest priority in my training.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2014)

OK back to the stand up sweep submit theory. If you are trying to stand up. Defending that makes it harder to block a sweep. Which in turn makes it harder to block a submission. To switching from one to the other creates openings you can use. You tend not to apply just one method and assume it will work.

Now the interesting thing is that they can't punch you and defend the stand up sweep submit either so either the crack some shots off and let you up or the dedicate themselves to holding you down. At which point they are not hitting you.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 27, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The striking art does have physical limitation.
> 
> If a grappler takes his opponent down
> 
> ...



This exact discussion is happening over in the general MA section in the MMA/TMA topic.

Some people can't wrap their minds over the fact that a grappler is more proficient at an RNC or any choke in general, than a striker knocking someone out with a neck strike.

The simple reality, as you explained above, is that a grappler has actually used that technique for its precise purpose countless times in training. The striker more than likely has never actually used the neck strike on anyone at full force. Thus when the poop hits the fan, the grappler is far more likely to pull off his moves than the striker is.


----------



## Buka (Sep 27, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This exact discussion is happening over in the general MA section in the MMA/TMA topic.
> 
> Some people can't wrap their minds over the fact that a grappler is more proficient at an RNC or any choke in general, than a striker knocking someone out with a neck strike.
> 
> The simple reality, as you explained above, is that a grappler has actually used that technique for its precise purpose countless times in training. The striker more than likely has never actually used the neck strike on anyone at full force. Thus when the poop hits the fan, the grappler is far more likely to pull off his moves than the striker is.



I'd like to add something for strikers everywhere. You really need to train with a RNC in grappling, even if it's just you and your guys in your dojo. Practiced "once in a while" it seems like it's as easy as pie, but while it's easy enough (at times) to get your arms in the proper position, actually getting the choke to make someone sleep or tap takes more practice, and technique, than a lot of young strikers think.


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There is something fundamentally wrong with your approach to this. What you are describing is ego sparring. And you will never get a good reception in any gym if you go in and pull that. That is the reason you find yourself matched with a top fighter *who will give you a lesson in humility.*



Agreed. Sparring is about training, conditioning and learning. If we don't check your ego at the door it will go badly, and nothing will be learned. My point was that in either grappling or striking, that learning opportunity is diminished when you are paired with someone who is all about ego and won't acknowledge your hits or submissions unless you go all out and hurt him. Judging from your last sentence (see bolded type above) I think you agree and share my impatience with that kind of attitude.

BTW Regarding "verbal sparring'', has anybody else noted that the same kind of ego driven, argumentative stubbornness has been popping up on this thread from time to time? After all the arguments are presented and discussed, sometimes it's best to just accept that there are differences in perspective and let it go. I'm not sure we're there yet, but we're probably getting close. Carry on.


----------



## Buka (Sep 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> And I'd much rather have my son get into wrestling or BJJ than boxing for the same reasons.



Amen to that, brother. I don't like seeing young men going into boxing, especially if they do so with competition in mind.


----------



## Buka (Sep 27, 2014)

Argus said:


> I thought I posted a few, but I guess they don't count.
> 
> Really, it seems like everyone is only interested in arguing at this point. My answer is "STFU and train" -- Train Wing Chun. Train grappling. Train Wing Chun against grapplers. Any unrealistic notions will be quickly dispelled, and you'll get far more benefit than you will from arguing notions and semantics on the internet. And just maybe, dispel ignorance on both sides of the issue.
> 
> From reading this thread, I can't help but marvel that elitism among grapplers is just as bad as elitism among WC practitioners. Put them together, and you have some awful stubborn head butting going on. Or you know, a very well rounded fighter, if you can get past that first bit.



So, true, bro. But about that "elitism" you mentioned, you know where that first raised it's ugly head? With us Karate people. We started all of that. In the sixties, there really weren't many dojos around. In the seventies they popped up like rabbits, they were everywhere. And the vast majority of them were Karate schools. Karate instructors were notorious for bad mouthing ANY style/school that wasn't them. It would have been laughable if it wasn't so sad, stupid and counter productive to good attitude and good training. Back then, I found it embarrassing. Now I just look at it as amusing......which is why I so love Master Ken and his Ameri-do-te.


----------



## Argus (Sep 27, 2014)

Buka said:


> So, true, bro. But about that "elitism" you mentioned, you know where that first raised it's ugly head? With us Karate people. We started all of that. In the sixties, there really weren't many dojos around. In the seventies they popped up like rabbits, they were everywhere. And the vast majority of them were Karate schools. Karate instructors were notorious for bad mouthing ANY style/school that wasn't them. It would have been laughable if it wasn't so sad, stupid and counter productive to good attitude and good training. Back then, I found it embarrassing. Now I just look at it as amusing......which is why I so love Master Ken and his Ameri-do-te.



Really? I trained Karate for a short time, and I found karate-ka to be some of the most open-minded people I've met in the Martial Arts. But then, maybe I was just lucky to find a good school.


----------



## Buka (Sep 27, 2014)

Argus said:


> Really? I trained Karate for a short time, and I found karate-ka to be some of the most open-minded people I've met in the Martial Arts. But then, maybe I was just lucky to find a good school.



I find karateka to be that way as well. And a lot has changed over the years, most for the better, but not all. Again, I was talking about a different era in martial arts. I'm sure some would find a lot of what went on forty years ago quite odd. Back then, if you wore a black gi in competition in many parts of New England, you would have felt like you had been transported back to the antebellum South. You couldn't win no matter how good you were or how well you fought. You were considered a heathen. That sounds so fricken strange now, but that's the way it was.

And Karate people don't bad mouth each other any more, at least not the ones I know. I'm going to a yearly dinner tonight of Karate people from a different organization. I have a lot of old friends there, and even though we didn't train together, we've known each other forever. It will be lots of fun, a couple guys there will be getting high promotions, they've been training since the sixties, and I'll bet my bottom dollar there will be no hating on anyone, no matter how many beers are raised. And that's the way it should always be.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> Agreed. Sparring is about training, conditioning and learning. If we don't check your ego at the door it will go badly, and nothing will be learned. My point was that in either grappling or striking, that learning opportunity is diminished when you are paired with someone who is all about ego and won't acknowledge your hits or submissions unless you go all out and hurt him. Judging from your last sentence (see bolded type above) I think you agree and share my impatience with that kind of attitude.
> 
> BTW Regarding "verbal sparring'', has anybody else noted that the same kind of ego driven, argumentative stubbornness has been popping up on this thread from time to time? After all the arguments are presented and discussed, sometimes it's best to just accept that there are differences in perspective and let it go. I'm not sure we're there yet, but we're probably getting close. Carry on.



I have no idea of this concept of acknowledging hits. You get hit or you don't.  There are some things I won't tap to either. Guillotines are one because i can generally ride them out.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I have no idea of this concept of acknowledging hits. You get hit or you don't.  There are some things I won't tap to either. Guillotines are one because i can generally ride them out.




If I'm working with someone that is ignoring my punches and plowing into me because I'm being a nice guy and lightly tapping them, then the next exchange gets a bit rougher, and so on until they get the message.

But there is a fine line of acknowledging every little touch and knowing that if a technique had been thrown with power and intent it would have stopped you dead in your tracks.
I constantly harp to my guys that you're going to get hit, no one's that good. It becomes a matter of drive and toughness on whether you're able to keep going after taking a few shots.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 27, 2014)

yak sao said:


> If I'm working with someone that is ignoring my punches and plowing into me because I'm being a nice guy and lightly tapping them, then the next exchange gets a bit rougher, and so on until they get the message.


We all have experienced about "control punch" some point in our life while our opponent may not get the message. If you can punch at your opponent's face, you should be able to grab on his throat. A throat hold can stop your opponent's forward momentum. If you want to take him down, all you need is just to add your leading arm control and leg cut. IMO, this may be the best way to train your knock down punch without hurting your opponent but still with some degree of "combat" reality.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 27, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all have experienced about "control punch" some point in our life while our opponent may not get the message. If you can punch at your opponent's face, you should be able to grab on his throat. A throat hold can stop your opponent's forward momentum. If you want to take him down, all you need is just to add your leading arm control and leg cut. IMO, this may be the best way to train your knock down punch without hurting your opponent but still with some degree of "combat" reality.



Honestly if you are any good there are a few ways to get the message across.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 27, 2014)

yak sao said:


> If I'm working with someone that is ignoring my punches and plowing into me because I'm being a nice guy and lightly tapping them, then the next exchange gets a bit rougher, and so on until they get the message.
> 
> But there is a fine line of acknowledging every little touch and knowing that if a technique had been thrown with power and intent it would have stopped you dead in your tracks.
> I constantly harp to my guys that you're going to get hit, no one's that good. It becomes a matter of drive and toughness on whether you're able to keep going after taking a few shots.




Sparring lightly is a different game with different tactics to sparring heavy.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 27, 2014)

Argus said:


> I thought I posted a few, but I guess they don't count.
> 
> Really, it seems like everyone is only interested in arguing at this point. My answer is "STFU and train" -- Train Wing Chun. Train grappling. Train Wing Chun against grapplers. Any unrealistic notions will be quickly dispelled, and you'll get far more benefit than you will from arguing notions and semantics on the internet. And just maybe, dispel ignorance on both sides of the issue.
> 
> From reading this thread, I can't help but marvel that elitism among grapplers is just as bad as elitism among WC practitioners. Put them together, and you have some awful stubborn head butting going on. Or you know, a very well rounded fighter, if you can get past that first bit.



Pointing out bogus techniques isn't elitism. Frankly, these techniques were created with dubious intentions. We're doing you guys a favor by exposing how laughable they are against their intended victims, and giving you pointers on real grappling counters and techniques. If you want to learn anti-grappling, learn grappling. Don't attempt to apply WC where it was never intended to be applied.


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Don't attempt to apply WC where it was never intended to be applied.



_Intended?_ ....Hmmm, methinks there is more to WC than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Hanzou.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> _Intended?_ ....Hmmm, methinks there is more to WC than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Hanzou.



Given those anti-grappling videos, I beg to differ.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk[/video]

And now we have Counter Grappling........

I laughed at this clip more than I should have.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> [video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk[/video]
> 
> And now we have Counter Grappling........
> 
> I laughed at this clip more than I should have.



The really weird thing about that is the defence for bycicle kicking is moves like the cartwheel. Which I would never have believed was viable until someone did it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtbiXvoZT8

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs3RBue2Plg


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> [video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk[/video]
> 
> And now we have Counter Grappling........
> 
> I laughed at this clip more than I should have.



Pretty solid technique in my book , getting kicked in the face and the groin is no fun.
That being said you could probably do away with some of the fancy stuff.

Just because it is not your way , does not make it a less valid tool for self defence.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The really weird thing about that is the defence for bycicle kicking is moves like the cartwheel. Which I would never have believed was viable until someone did it.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtbiXvoZT8
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs3RBue2Plg



Yeah cartwheels will work in the crowded bar won't they. 

Excuse me people can you move for a sec while I just cartwheel onto this dude on the floor.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 28, 2014)

Well just a quick opinion hear on the you tube video: First a lot of fights to go to ground but why resort to going there first? That position on the ground only escalates the fight and it is far from over! Also what if a second or multiple people are standing by to kick you and what ever? You have lost your ability to deal with them!! If the attacker was right handed on your left side with a one are head lock as shown I suggest the following. 

First relax and bring your left arm over the top and your hand placed over the attackers face with your left thumb applying pressure to the nerves under the nose. The mistake people make is trying to push the attackers head back? No if you apply the thumb and nerve pressure properly the attacker's head move back setting him off balance backwards and exposing two vital areas the throat and the stomach conception points or solarplex. If it is not life threatening, say a drunk or friend you hammer fist the stomach as hard as you need to resulting in their being completely down and you can walk away.

Second: Life threatening situation this means weapons or multiple attackers coming in to kill you or do some real damage. This means you need to make sure the guy does not get up and you focus on the next person! Instead of hammer fist to stomach you use knife hand the throat while his head is back and throat is stretched. Remember this will collapse the throat and there is no coming back with out a trace insertion of a tube. It is a horrible thing to listen to the sucking noise of a person trying to get air and it will haunt you in your sleep for some time. You cannot talk this stuff you need to practice physically and mentally because you will do what you practice.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Pretty solid technique in my book , getting kicked in the face and the groin is no fun.
> That being said you could probably do away with some of the fancy stuff.
> 
> Just because it is not your way , does not make it a less valid tool for self defence.



Its not a valid tool for self defense because its nonsense.

Think about this for a moment; They're saying that what amounts to bicycle kicking is an effective method of stopping someone from getting on top of you after a takedown.

You know what a grappler  is going to do? They're going to grab one of your legs, and move it aside. That's IF you're somehow lucky enough to break his takedown hold by bicycle kicking him in the first place.

Seriously, do you guys actually test this stuff, or do you just believe it because its Wing Chun? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## mograph (Sep 28, 2014)

Just checking in, from the peanut gallery (feel free to ignore this post): what is the *goal* of the techniques discussed here? 
There may be multiple goals being discussed without their being explicitly stated, hence the disagreements.

Carry on.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 28, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Its not a valid tool for self defense because its nonsense.
> 
> Think about this for a moment; They're saying that what amounts to bicycle kicking is an effective method of stopping someone from getting on top of you after a takedown.
> 
> ...



People generally kick a lot faster than what was shown in that video , and not as circular I might add.
Very hard to grab legs that are both continually thrusting out at high speed.
You grab one leg , they'll kick you in the head with the other.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> People generally kick a lot faster than what was shown in that video , and not as circular I might add.
> Very hard to grab legs that are both continually thrusting out at high speed.



Yes, if you're actually dumb enough to stay directly in the path of the legs kicking at you. 

How about you shift slightly to the right or left of the kicker's legs and advance? The kicker has to shift their hips in order to compensate for your lateral movement, at which point the attacker can simply control your legs at the knee and enter into position. 

Or he can get under your kicking legs, grab you, and begin to stack you.

Or he can grab your ankles, or pants and control your leg, setting you up for an ankle lock.



> You grab one leg , they'll kick you in the head with the other.



How much damage do you think a kick with your right leg would do if I control your left leg, and I'm on the left side of your hips? Once a grappler controls one of your legs, it becomes an easy guard pass.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 28, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Yeah cartwheels will work in the crowded bar won't they.
> 
> Excuse me people can you move for a sec while I just cartwheel onto this dude on the floor.



Bycicle kicks won't work in a river. Are you really going down this path. It is silly.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 28, 2014)

Some of you don't know good wing chun & I don't comment on the videos.
It's too easy to pick bad examples of  style and critique the style.


Good wingchun develops a pretty good structure and dynamics standing up and preventing take down.
If one ends up on the ground you roll in several different ways and get up for more action.

If you cant get up right away there are still uses of short power if you have developed short power.

Apart from styles--individuals can make a difference. Depends on what you master.

No sense in getting bogged down with endless debating in this thread.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> Some of you don't know good wing chun & I don't comment on the videos.



It's pretty hard to determine what "good Wing Chun" is if every video example shown is supposedly "bad".


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 28, 2014)

True. Bad you tube samples of any good subject does not tell much about the subject- except that there are many  bad examples.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 28, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can punch at your opponent's face, you should be able to grab on his throat.





drop bear said:


> Honestly if you are any good there are a few ways to get the message across.



I don't like "no contact" control sparring.

You can 

- pull your punch just 1/2 inch away from your opponent's face.
- punch as hard as you can next to your opponent's face.

Both approaches cannot stop your opponent's forward momentum.


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Pretty solid technique in my book , getting kicked in the face and the groin is no fun.
> That being said you could probably do away with some of the fancy stuff.
> 
> Just because it is not your way , does not make it a less valid tool for self defence.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop

_Mook_, I have never met _Sifu Yannis Simeonidis_, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. _Emin_ is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, _Yannis_ is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that _Emin_ taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.

Now regarding this last clip, it's not a choreographed demo but more like "light WC ground sparring" and at times has a bit of the feeling of a "lock flow drill" --not in the techniques, which are overwhelmingly percussive, but in the way he flows from one situation to another. 

I actually _like_ the way _Yannis_ applies WC principles and strikes on the ground. There are some moves that may be borrowed from BJJ, but the majority of what I saw looks like intelligently applied WC striking and controlling, except from the ground. Not the place you want to be, but a good place to train from case you end up there. This is an approach any WC guy could quickly assimilate since it is an extension of what he already does.

Now_ Hanzou _may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that _Hanzou_ does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes _Sifu Yannis_ delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend _Hanzou_ will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop
> 
> _Mook_, I have never met _Sifu Yannis Simeonidis_, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. _Emin_ is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, _Yannis_ is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that _Emin_ taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.
> 
> ...



I think the lenses on those Bjj goggles he's got welded to his head are so damn thick , everything he sees out of them is from the perspective a grappler in a competition.

Simple kicks in the face and groin won't do , no , you've got to pass the guard get a submission hold and see if the judges will give you some points.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop
> 
> _Mook_, I have never met _Sifu Yannis Simeonidis_, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. _Emin_ is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, _Yannis_ is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that _Emin_ taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.
> 
> ...



I notice he's wearing long trousers.  Is controlling the leg by grabbing the pants against the rules of anti grappling?  If not, I wonder that his training partner... The "grappler," isn't working to secure any kind of control over his opponent's legs.

Don't get me wrong.  Using your legs is critical, and you might be successful, but I don't think so unless you,train with competent partners.  Some of you do, and some are too wrapped up in ego.  Those who do will surely be better prepared.  

Geezer, it strikes me as a little unfair to accuse Hanzou of bias, when surely you are talking to a guy in mook who is equally blinded by bias, if not more so.  I've always appreciated your own moderate opinions, and we've heard from others, such as yak Sao, who says he works on his technique with actual grapplers.   Mook on the other hand, is as much a fanboy as anyone around here.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 28, 2014)

The cognitive dissonance here is frankly astounding. Can we have an honest discussion on WC's strengths and weaknesses in grappling scenarios without resorting to woo for once?


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 28, 2014)

Getting a little weary of the thread.My key  wing chun brothers and sisters and my best students are both stable and mobile enough to 
overcome take down attempts. And- I have tried  out wingchun defense against an all American Greco roman grappler moving in for a takedown,
an Oklahoma heavyweight wrestling champion and against a junior high wrestling coach . Further. from time to time 
I have practiced wing chun on the ground before I knew who the Gracies were.
These were competent people who I respect and could handle me in a sporting wrestling match.

In the article section of my website at www.tempewingchun.com  my second article for the Journal of Asian Martial art
shows me defending against a very competent grappler.

I come to the forum from time to time to learn something- and occasionally I do.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> Getting a little weary of the thread.My key  wing chun brothers and sisters and my best students are both stable and mobile enough to
> overcome take down attempts. And- I have tried  out wingchun defense against an all American Greco roman grappler moving in for a takedown,
> an Oklahoma heavyweight wrestling champion and against a junior high wrestling coach . Further. from time to time
> I have practiced wing chun on the ground before I knew who the Gracies were.
> ...



Fwiw, my opinion is that this is an incredibly healthy training model, and your openness to working with competent grapplers is laudable.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> Now_ Hanzou _may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that _Hanzou_ does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes _Sifu Yannis_ delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend _Hanzou_ will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?



Two things;

1. It doesn't require a skilled grappler to get past a guy doing bicycle kicks on his back. I mean, you really think it takes a great deal of skill to grab someone's pants and pull the leg in a given direction?
2. I saw nothing in that vid that wouldn't be legal in an MMA/NHB competition.


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2014)

Steve said:


> I notice he's wearing long trousers.  Is controlling the leg by grabbing the pants against the rules of anti grappling?  If not, I wonder that his training partner... The "grappler," isn't working to secure any kind of control over his opponent's legs.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  Using your legs is critical, and you might be successful, but I don't think so unless you, *train with competent partners.*  Some of you do, and some are too wrapped up in ego.  Those who do will surely be better prepared.



True and fair words.

BTW Steve, to be honest I _am_ biased since I am a WC stylist. I've seen people make something as seemingly simple as _chain punching_ work when other stylists said it was a ridiculous idea. 

I've also seen people use _chain kicking_ and leg checks from the ground to keep from being mounted and to recover their game. It's not easy. There is more subtlety and skill involved than meets the eye, but it can work very well. So there is no point in arguing. Either people will agree or not. The style and methods we choose are up to each of us and we have to live with our choices. But if we are to avoid self delusion, we need to do as you suggest above and seek out competent, resisting partners to train with and test our skills. 

You know, Joy is probably right. Perhaps this thread has run it's course and is done.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like "no contact" control sparring.
> 
> You can
> 
> ...



Which is something you would have to just accept because I can't imagine anybody would train to react to a punch that doesn't hit them.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2014)

All right. mindset. Grappling is a will game as much as anything. Part of the anti grappling method is where you expend your energy. So if you are going to put the effort in it has to be at the scramble. You cannot lazy out and hope things will get better from your back because they really won't.

If you are put on your back don't rest. You cannot afford to. You need to be effecting a stand up before the guy on top has time to consolidate his position.

A lot of takedown defence are worst case scenarios. And it is worth training the elements of control before you need to employ these. The concept is heavy hands. Make the clinch a burden for the other guy. Learn good head control and expend the energy to be a right pain to deal with.

This means taking the head and driving it into the ground. Getting a solid over hook and working that.


----------



## Buka (Sep 29, 2014)

There's lots of different ways to do things. I think the best way  to do anti-anything, would be to do some training in that particular  "anything". If you wanted anti-boxing, you would be better off doing  some training in boxing. And not with a fella in your gym that's acting  as the boxer. Training in boxing would give you a much better idea how  to use any martial skill you have against boxing. Same for  anti-grappling. Training in grappling gives you a first hand feel for  the many intricacies of grappling arts. Same for anti - kicking. The  more you train in kicking, and know about the mechanics, timing and  application of kicks, the better any anti-kicking would be. Same for WC,  go do some before you think about anti - WC. 

Best way to  defeat a grappler is to go grapple for a while, get caught in every  submission and train in every submission, and most important IMO, is to  learn about position and base. To me, anti anything is purely theoretical without some training in that "anything".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2014)

Buka said:


> I think the best way  to do anti-anything, would be to do some training in that particular  "anything".



Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all. 

 - You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
 - If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all.
> 
> - You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
> - If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.



A grappler with boxing experience will have an easier time establishing a clinch without getting hit than a grappler without that experience.  He'll know how to read his opponent and how to slip punches on his way in. He'll also have the option of using his own strikes to set up an entry. Randy Couture is an excellent example of this.

In the early days of MMA, you had pure "striker vs grappler" battles. These days a fighter who prefers to strike has to know enough grappling to neutralize his opponents clinch and takedown attempts. Likewise a fighter who prefers to grapple has to know enough striking to survive while attempting to reach grappling range. No one at the professional level of modern MMA can survive without both striking and grappling skills.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> A grappler with boxing experience will have an easier time establishing a clinch without getting hit than a grappler without that experience.


When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.

1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.

 If you are a grappler 

 - with boxing training, you may choose option 1. You may miss your clinch opportunity right at that moment.
 - without any boxing training, you may choose option 2 and achieve your clinch right at that moment.

 If you are a grappler, your striking skill will never be as good as a "pure" striker. Try to apply your 2nd class striking skill against your opponent's 1st class striking skill is not a smart strategy IMO. When a shark attacks an octopus, that octopus won't try to bite back on that shark but tries to wrap around that shark ASAP.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.
> 
> 1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
> 2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.
> ...




I get your point, but people are neither sharks nor octopuses.

A shark can never learn to fight like an octopus, and vice-versa. Their anatomy is completely different, and they both have to work with the tools at their disposal.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.
> 
> 1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
> 2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.
> ...



a) There are more options than the two you present.
b) Your "octopus" strategy can work against low-level amateur competition. It will not work anymore in high-level professional competition. Even elite, world-class grapplers can't survive in high-level MMA without at least some striking skills. Once upon a time, they could. Not any more. These days a pure grappler just charging at his opponent trying to wrap up and get the clinch is just asking to be knocked out. 
c) A grappler who learns striking doesn't have to "apply his 2nd class striking skill against his opponent's 1st class striking skill." He can use his "2nd class striking skill" to create opportunities for grappling. Likewise a striker who learns grappling doesn't have to beat the grappler at his own game. He can use his grappling skill to beat his opponent's clinch just long enough to land strikes. (Or if taken down, he can use his grappling skills to escape back to his feet and the striking range.)

This isn't theoretical. We have the results of thousands of fights between highly trained professional fighters to study the results of and this is what they show.

Your "big-fist" tactic for getting the clinch has validity against the average Joe in the street. Against professionals, it isn't enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Your "octopus" strategy can work against low-level amateur competition. It will not work anymore in high-level professional competition.
> ... Your "big-fist" tactic for getting the clinch has validity against the average Joe in the street. Against professionals, it isn't enough.



In 

- strategy, it should have no problem to be used to deal with the professionals. 
- practice, more testing will be needed and there is no argument on that.


----------



## Buka (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all.
> 
> - You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
> - If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.



I agree, that would make no sense at all. My point was/is the title of this thread "some more thoughts on anti grappling". In order to realistically develop skills against a grappler you have to spend some time in the water. Otherwise, you're just fishing instead of swimming. And you probably ain't using the right bait.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 29, 2014)

Buka said:


> I agree, that would make no sense at all. My point was/is the title of this thread "some more thoughts on anti grappling". In order to realistically develop skills against a grappler you have to spend some time in the water. Otherwise, you're just fishing instead of swimming. And you probably ain't using the right bait.


____________________________________________________________________________
very grappler is different to some extent as grappling matches show. Ok to work with some to get an idea about common elements in grappling.
that uou have to deal with.

More important- to develop your own wing chun game.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> More important- to develop your own wing chun game.



If hook punch and uppercut can give your grappler opponent more trouble (in my experience, it does), why do you not want to include those skill set into your toolbox even if it may not belong to your WC system?


----------



## K-man (Sep 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> This exact discussion is happening over in the general MA section in the MMA/TMA topic.
> 
> Some people can't wrap their minds over the fact that a grappler is more proficient at an RNC or any choke in general, than a striker knocking someone out with a neck strike.
> 
> The simple reality, as you explained above, is that a grappler has actually used that technique for its precise purpose countless times in training. The striker more than likely has never actually used the neck strike on anyone at full force. Thus when the poop hits the fan, the grappler is far more likely to pull off his moves than the striker is.


:BSmeter:


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If hook punch and uppercut can give your grappler opponent more trouble (in my experience, it does), why do you not want to include those skill set into your toolbox even if it may not belong to your WC system?


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

??????  Goes by different names and some differences in details- but 
the hook and the upper cut is in the wc "too; box!"- in hand forms and the jong!!


----------



## yak sao (Sep 29, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ??????  Goes by different names and some differences in details- but
> the hook and the upper cut is in the wc "too; box!"- in hand forms and the jong!!



Ahhh, you beat me to the punch....so to speak


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If hook punch and uppercut can give your grappler opponent more trouble (in my experience, it does), why do you not want to include those skill set into your toolbox even if it may not belong to your WC system?




They ARE in the WC toolbox


----------



## Danny T (Sep 29, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ??????  Goes by different names and some differences in details- but
> the hook and the upper cut is in the wc "too; box!"- in hand forms and the jong!!


Yeap we do. Or at least in the wc we practice in. We have straight punches, overhand punches, uppercut punches, backfist punches. We also use the palm, the fingers, the thumb, the thumb side of the hand, the little finger side of the hand,  the wrist, the forearm, the elbow, the upper arm, the shoulder, the head, the body, the hip, the upper leg, the knee, the lower leg, the ankle, the inside of the foot, the outside of the foot, the top of the foot, and the bottom of the foot. And a few others not mentioned. If, if and only if that is the most available and efficient tool to use at the time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> They ARE in the WC toolbox



I love you guys open attitude. I don't like when people say:

- We don't do this.
- It's against our style principle.
- ...

The WC Tan Shou is almost identical to the Taiji "snake extend tone". Both can be use as uppercut perfectly.


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> They ARE in the WC toolbox



There are a lot of things in the WC toolbox. And some of us readily borrow stuff from other people if it fits well with WC. Here are a few simple examples: If you get thrown, swept or knocked down, how do you get up? The following guy, who by the look of his uniform comes from one of the "WT" groups, shows two approaches. The first (2:04-2:10) is an aggressive, forward moving stand-up leaving the hands free to punch, much as I was first taught by LT, Emin and others. The problem is you don't create distance and you are unstable if your opponent jams you. The second version he shows (2:45-4:00) I find much more practical. It's the simple BJJ "stand-up in base" --although he doesn't say so.






Now here's another guy, an eclectic kenpo/FMA practitioner who has a slightly different twist on the standup in base that actually works pretty well from a striker's perspective. It offers good stability against a jam or charge, but seems to allow a more upright posture and better striking options than the  classic BJJ stand-up. Like the WC guy, this guy's objective is to get back into a standing, striking range rather than to pursue the ground fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m09aJY-Uz7g&list=UUAVYkYPeAbXRwX5nxplPsfQ


----------



## Kwan Sau (Sep 30, 2014)

geezer said:


> There are a lot of things in the WC toolbox. And some of us readily borrow stuff from other people




Was referring to the uppercut and hook.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 30, 2014)

geezer said:


> There are a lot of things in the WC toolbox. And some of us readily borrow stuff from other people if it fits well with WC. Here are a few simple examples: If you get thrown, swept or knocked down, how do you get up? The following guy, who by the look of his uniform comes from one of the "WT" groups, shows two approaches. The first (2:04-2:10) is an aggressive, forward moving stand-up leaving the hands free to punch, much as I was first taught by LT, Emin and others. The problem is you don't create distance and you are unstable if your opponent jams you. The second version he shows (2:45-4:00) I find much more practical. It's the simple BJJ "stand-up in base" --although he doesn't say so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Geezer; learned these same variations and some others from silat and kali from years ago. First introduced to the silat variations back in the 70's. All are good and when understanding the principles of jamming and creating space from these positions I believe you will find many systems utilize these actions in some form.


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Geezer; learned these same variations and some others from silat and kali from years ago. First introduced to the silat variations back in the 70's. All are good and when understanding the principles of jamming and creating space from these positions I believe *you will find many systems utilize these actions* in some form.



_Absolutely_. I pick up a lot of stuff in the FMA group I study with. It's an eclectic group that includes people from a lot of MA styles ranging from young guys who compete to old geezers like me. It's also a great because_ I am just a student_ there. No need to play "sifu" and always be right. Wearing that instructor hat too much can make it hard to learn new stuff.  Ya know, I think I might start a thread about that.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Jun 28, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Anyone who is interested in "anti-grappling" should watch the fights of Chuck Liddell. He was a master of using his wrestling skills to negate his opponent's takedowns so that he could finish fights with his striking.


|
Liddell used the classic wrestler sprawl, TMU.  Nothing anti-grappling helped Machida @ UFC Fight Night 70 against Romero.  Romero grabbed Machida 3rd round & literally manhandled Machida to the mat.  Hellbows followed sending Machida to dreamland.  It was ugly.....


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Liddell used the classic wrestler sprawl, TMU.  Nothing anti-grappling helped Machida @ UFC Fight Night 70 against Romero.  Romero grabbed Machida 3rd round & literally manhandled Machida to the mat.  Hellbows followed sending Machida to dreamland.  It was ugly.....


By manhandling, of course you mean a perfectly timed and executed ankle pick followed by technical striking on the ground.

If you like high level striking and grappling, and appreciate technique, it was beautiful.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jun 28, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If hook punch and uppercut can give your grappler opponent more trouble (in my experience, it does), why do you not want to include those skill set into your toolbox even if it may not belong to your WC system?


--------------------------------------------------------
My wing chun has a hook punch formula in the mok jong and biu gee- it is not froma western boxing stance.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Jun 29, 2015)

Steve said:


> By manhandling, of course you mean a perfectly timed and executed ankle pick followed by technical striking on the ground.
> 
> If you like high level striking and grappling, and appreciate technique, it was beautiful.


|
Steve, I am a noob when it comes the grappling science you have here @ MT.  Machida's TD defense had been reputed to be excellent.  I think, however, that assessment was colored by the quality of his earlier-on opponents....
|
Romero, in my eyes (not your eyes) used physical aggression & strength to power Machida off his feet & onto the ground bodily.  A judo exhibition it was not....  Kinda a hug & plow to the ground....
\
Ending goes to my limited response (re-grappling) that as a traditional karateka, I never want to go to the ground with a bigger, stronger, heavy guy on top of me....  And whatever Machida's anti-grappling / grappling skill owing to his reputed sumo, bjj, whatever; Romero nullified Machida by that Round #3 TD very quickly.
|
Steve, maybe The Machida / Romero fight would make a good direction for this thread, since we had a fully resisting opponent (Machida) along with two separate grappling styles (Machida-BJJ reportedly / Romero Olympic Wrestling reportedly).  WHAT COULD MACHIDA, WHAT COULD HAVE THE DEFENDER AGAINST ROMERO DONE DIFFERENTLY...?  Your thoughts....


----------



## Jake104 (Jun 30, 2015)

When did this little gem of a thread pop up? Where have I been? Looks like I have ten pages to read . Hopefully there are a lot of pictures!


----------

