# rooting and takedowns



## PeaceWarrior (Dec 12, 2006)

Hello,

I have heard of Taijiquan masters being able to root themselves so well that even many people cannot push them over. I have also heard of something similiar in Aikido, where one can become so firmly rooted in the ground that they cant be picked up or moved by anybody.  I am wondering what the mechanics of this are and what training is necessary?

And I thought this would definetly have some application when sparring (or fighting) a grappler whose main intention is to uproot and take to the ground.  Has anybody here successfully used these rooting principles in a fight against an experienced grappler whos full intention is to take it to the ground? 

Hmm...


----------



## kosho (Dec 13, 2006)

In Kosho Ryu Kempo we work on rooting.  I have seen Pat kelly Sensei work this Rooting and shifting of power. against a Black Belt in BJJ in calf:
he could not be taken down and when the person shooting in was taken off his base. sensei locked him up for the tap. I think this is true to any system when one can truly root themselfs. then it is really hard to be taken down.
kosho


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 13, 2006)

You would be amazed at what a proper horse stance, with all the anatomical alignments in place, can do for your stability vs momentum.  I learned some amazing things about stances and rooting from taking some lessons in Sub-level 4 kenpo.


----------



## PeaceWarrior (Dec 13, 2006)

kosho said:


> In Kosho Ryu Kempo we work on rooting.  I have seen Pat kelly Sensei work this Rooting and shifting of power. against a Black Belt in BJJ in calf:
> he could not be taken down and when the person shooting in was taken off his base. sensei locked him up for the tap. I think this is true to any system when one can truly root themselfs. then it is really hard to be taken down.
> kosho





DavidCC said:


> You would be amazed at what a proper horse stance, with all the anatomical alignments in place, can do for your stability vs momentum.  I learned some amazing things about stances and rooting from taking some lessons in Sub-level 4 kenpo.



Very interesting that only kenpoka have responded to this...I was not aware of rooting concepts available in kenpo, I had only heard of it in aikido, tai chi, wing chun, and other internal arts...(not sure if kenpo is internal or external or both) 
Very cool! I work on classic horse stance and wing chun horse alot, so hopefully I am developing this rootedness too so I can use it effectively against takedowns. 
I have read that one foot should be yin and one foot yang (one foot in heaven and one in earth) to create a true connection with the earth, much like a plug in a socket.

Peace
Keith


----------



## kosho (Dec 14, 2006)

Just this past tuesday in  jaffery NH. my teacher master Evans. we did a work shop (about 3 1/2 hrs) on rooting and what not. it was a great class. and it ties into what you have posted here. when something has structor behind it and can channle its energy threw the body and root itself to the earth. it can't be moved. as the force changes so does the person rooting  and changes there angles of rooting...
kosho


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

Rooting is a huge part of our system. My sifu, who is about the same size as me, can stand on one foot with two other big guys pushing him, and they cannot budge him. I understand the concept of rooting, it just takes lots of training. My sifu said an average of 3 years to really reach the point of being able to become immovable against a larger opponent. It has nothing to do with strength. You have to learn to sink your weight and proper breathing from the dantian is essential. It does have alot to do with chi and channeling the energy into the ground so to speak. Also, a proper stance is essential. Even at the start with our system, you can become solidly grounded with the right stance. These are things we train every single class.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Rooting is a huge part of our system. My sifu, who is about the same size as me, can stand on one foot with two other big guys pushing him, and they cannot budge him. I understand the concept of rooting, it just takes lots of training. My sifu said an average of 3 years to really reach the point of being able to become immovable against a larger opponent. It has nothing to do with strength. You have to learn to sink your weight and proper breathing from the dantian is essential. It does have alot to do with chi and channeling the energy into the ground so to speak. Also, a proper stance is essential. Even at the start with our system, you can become solidly grounded with the right stance. These are things we train every single class.


 
I thought you took Southern Mantis, If so why are you talking about my Yang style Sifu? I have never seen you in class!!! 

My Yang style Sifu is much smaller than me and I cannot move him. But there is more to rooting than being unmovable. If my Sifu and I are doing push hands and if he gets his hand over mine I cannot lift my hand nor can I uproot him. If I do use force to try and lift my hand I will find myself on the floor or flying backwards a few feet after he redirects my force and without a good root he could not do this. But if I use small circles and have a good root I can redirect it and get out of it.

There is rooting specific training that can be practiced but then we are crossing that line into what has come to be considered by many today a bad thing, antiquated and useless.... *STANCE TRAINING*. 

I however do not consider it useless, antiquated or a bad thing; sorry I'm just a dinosaur I guess


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> I thought you took Southern Mantis, If so why are you talking about my Yang style Sifu? I have never seen you in class!!!
> 
> My Yang style Sifu is much smaller than me and I cannot move him. But there is more to rooting than being unmovable. If my Sifu and I are doing push hands and if he gets his hand over mine I cannot lift my hand nor can I uproot him. If I do use force to try and lift my hand I will find myself on the floor or flying backwards a few feet after he redirects my force and without a good root he could not do this. But if I use small circles and have a good root I can redirect it and get out of it.
> 
> ...




LOL! No...but there are similarities for sure.  And you hit the nail on the head with stance training. It is anything BUT antiquated and useless. Without a good stance your kung fu is worthless.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Simple question, if it worked as well as some people claim, why on earth are wrestling teams not training this, and why would they laugh at you if you went in and suggested it?


----------



## pete (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Simple question, if it worked as well as some people claim, why on earth are wrestling teams not training this, and why would they laugh at you if you went in and suggested it?


do wrestling teams have the 3 years quoted to learn the art and develop the skill? the 'roids might work a little quicker. i guess those who laugh last laughs best...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Yes.


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 14, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Rooting is a huge part of our system. My sifu, who is about the same size as me, can stand on one foot with two other big guys pushing him, and they cannot budge him. I understand the concept of rooting, it just takes lots of training. My sifu said an average of 3 years to really reach the point of being able to become immovable against a larger opponent...


 
Like this?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> Like this?



Crap. I couldn't view it. Just got a black screen with audio.


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 14, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Crap. I couldn't view it. Just got a black screen with audio.


 

need new quicktime?  I'll post on youtube

try this shortly


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

That Criss Angel guy does some pretty amazing stuff too 

That, is a demonstration, a parlour trick, I can do unbendable arm demos too, but when it comes down to it, they don't mean much.


----------



## PeaceWarrior (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> There is rooting specific training that can be practiced but then we are crossing that line into what has come to be considered by many today a bad thing, antiquated and useless.... *&#8220;STANCE TRAINING&#8221;*.
> 
> I however do not consider it useless, antiquated or a bad thing; sorry I'm just a dinosaur I guess



Then I must be a dinosaur too! The reason people think stance training is "antiquated and useless" is because they either dont fully understand it, or they tried it and they didnt get immediate results, so "obviously it doesnt work."  I would be interested int this rooting specific training, if you would be kind enough to tell me.... 



Andrew Green said:


> Simple question, if it worked as well as some people claim, why on earth are wrestling teams not training this, and why would they laugh at you if you went in and suggested it?



You answered your own question, because most if not all wrestling coaches would laugh at the very idea, therefore not giving it any merit, or any chance whatsoever.  They would automatically shut the door on learning, a sad thing.  Americans tend to be very close minded when it comes to stuff like this,  because to them it seems like "fantasy"- which is fine, they _don't_ have to believe it. But does that mean its not true?  Does that mean nobody can do these things?  This kind of close mindedness is why people disregard stance training. In America, if it doesnt get instant results, its worthless.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

I saw this post probably right after PeaceWarrior started it and I decided not to get involved in it because I was fairly sure that it would, no matter how sincere PeaceWarrior was in posting it, inevitably degenerate into a my way is better than your way argument. Instead of an attempt to understand and learn as I believe it was originally intended.

With that said and my original trepidation for NOT getting involved in this thread proving to be true; Lets just get it out of the way now and save time.

Rooting and stance training is good
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is
No its not
Yes it is

I leave you to your argument. 

XS


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

PeaceWarrior said:


> Then I must be a dinosaur too! The reason people think stance training is "antiquated and useless" is because they either dont fully understand it, or they tried it and they didnt get immediate results, so "obviously it doesnt work." I would be interested int this rooting specific training, if you would be kind enough to tell me....


 
I will PM it to you later.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Wrestling is a international sport, so it has nothing to do with "America".  All it would take to convince a coach to give it a try would be ONE guy walking in the door and using this method to stop all his wrestlers attempts to take them down.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> need new quicktime?  I'll post on youtube
> 
> try this shortly



Thanks for posting that. No, it's actually quite different. Not done in a horse stance, and not with arms up like that.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> I saw this post probably right after PeaceWarrior started it and I decided not to get involved in it because I was fairly sure that it would, no matter how sincere PeaceWarrior was in posting it, inevitably degenerate into a my way is better than your way argument. Instead of an attempt to understand and learn as I believe it was originally intended.
> 
> With that said and my original trepidation for NOT getting involved in this thread proving to be true; Lets just get it out of the way now and save time.
> 
> ...



*sigh* Yes indeed. Thanks for getting that out of the way XS.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

I'd reword it a little:

This stuff works!
Ok, show us!
No
please
No, it works
So... show us...
Ok, here's some of my guys trying to move me while I use it
They are hardly trying, show us against someone outside your group.
No.


This is easy to end, one of the folks that claims they can do it grabs a guy with a camera, heads over to the local university wrestling club and tries it out.  Comes back, posts the video.

So why, with all of the people making these claims, has no one produced any evidence that it works by using it against the people they claim it will work against?

I have a feeling the results would be like that Pressure point group that got featured on a news program.  There stuff stopped working on the reporter, and on the BJJ club they went to to try it out as part of the feature.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> I'd reword it a little:
> 
> This stuff works!
> Ok, show us!
> ...


 
OK, I'm also reluctant to get involved in another argument that seems to be going in the direction of MMA/Modern vs. Traditional, but i'll see if I can put this a different way.

Rooting is important in traditional martial arts, and it has to do with proper stance training.  I only wish my earlier instructors had pushed me harder with this.  I am doing my best to make up for lost time.

Rooting gives you stability and makes all of your techniques more powerful, whether they be striking, blocking, or even standup type grappling and trapping techniques.

Rooting, all by itself, is not a silver bullet to stop all assailants.  Rooting demonstrations are isolating the stance and the rooting, and simply showing what can be accomplished with it, as opposed to weak stances and poor root.  But rooting, to have any usefulness, must be integrated into everything else that you do.

If one demonstrates rooting, void of anything else, a determined and/or strong and/or skilled grappler could of course cut under his base and throw him down.  It would be more difficult than if one was not rooted, but nothing about rooting, all by itself, will magically prevent a grappler from toppling someone.

But good rooting, integrated into all other elements of the traditional arts, makes the traditional arts much more powerful.  And this is often what is lacking today in traditional martial artists.  These skills build the foundation, and without them, the rest of the art is shaky, even weak, even worthless if bad enough.  But these skills take time, effort, dedication, and often don't show immediate results, so many people don't pursue them and simply write them off as fantasy, archaic, and useless.

You've got to see the whole picture, and understand how everything interacts and entwines the whole.  To isolate something like rooting, and claim that a grappler could overcome this and therefor it is pointless, is a pointless argument.

I could also state that a double-leg takedown is useless.  I could develop a strong defense against it, and every time you tried to do it to me, I could destroy you with my defense, *IF THAT IS ALL YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DO IN THE DEMONSTRATION*.

But of course this isn't the only thing in grappling.  It is only one element of the whole picture, and to isolate it, take it out of context, and make it a single, predictable technique, does nothing to convince anyone, including myself, that it is a worthless technique, when properly integrated into the whole system.


----------



## PeaceWarrior (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> I will PM it to you later.


Ok cool 



Andrew Green said:


> Wrestling is a international sport, so it has nothing to do with "America".  All it would take to convince a coach to give it a try would be ONE guy walking in the door and using this method to stop all his wrestlers attempts to take them down.



Im not trying to say that rooting makes you invincible to takedowns, but it can definetly enhance your ability to "stay rooted."  I havent sparred any grapplers but I have pushed and been pushed (hard) since I started my stance training, and I have noticed that I feel much more "wedge like" on my feet, and I can easily redirect the force away from me by sinking into the earth.   

I know some JJJ and Judo guys, and they work on stance training. 

And for Andrew Green:

I agree, someone should go out with a video camera and test it against grapplers. Absolutely.  I will make sure, when I learn how to do it (and really, fully understand it - not some half *** attempt) , to prove it on video.  That way I can know for myself if it works or not, and that others can observe.

I think its funny though how "video evidence" has somehow become the 
"be all, end all" of these arguments.  

So say some guy does a little stance training and claims he cant be uprooted.  Now this guy goes out and video tapes himself getting slammed over and over buy amateur wrestlers.  Does this prove rooting to be a myth or ineffective?  Actually, it doesnt prove anything either way.  Its all in the practitioner.


----------



## PeaceWarrior (Dec 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I'm also reluctant to get involved in another argument that seems to be going in the direction of MMA/Modern vs. Traditional, but i'll see if I can put this a different way.
> 
> Rooting is important in traditional martial arts, and it has to do with proper stance training.  I only wish my earlier instructors had pushed me harder with this.  I am doing my best to make up for lost time.
> 
> ...



I agree 100%!


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Rooting gives you stability and makes all of your techniques more powerful, whether they be striking, blocking, or even standup type grappling and trapping techniques.



Ok, and that is fine.  No one I think will disagree there.  But the issue is the claim that rooting is a viable defence against wrestling style takedowns, it is not.

Where I disagree is when people do treat traditional concepts, which have a function, as a magic bullet for everything.  Rooting, as a concept, is fine.  But IMO when people start making nonsense claims about how it is a super skill that beats all others they dimish any argument for the concept having any use at all.



> I could also state that a double-leg takedown is useless.  I could develop a strong defense against it, and every time you tried to do it to me, I could destroy you with my defense, *IF THAT IS ALL YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DO IN THE DEMONSTRATION*.




That's a demo I know Randy Couture has been known for at seminars.  Line everyone up, tell them exactly how he is going to take them down and tell them to stop them, then proceed to land everyone of them on there back


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, I'm also reluctant to get involved in another argument that seems to be going in the direction of MMA/Modern vs. Traditional, but i'll see if I can put this a different way.
> 
> Rooting is important in traditional martial arts, and it has to do with proper stance training. I only wish my earlier instructors had pushed me harder with this. I am doing my best to make up for lost time.
> 
> ...


 
Yup, that pretty much covers it.


----------



## East Winds (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng,

As a Zhan Zhaung and Yi Chuan practitioner, we dinosaurs rule!!!!:rofl:

Very best wishes


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Ok, and that is fine.  No one I think will disagree there.  But the issue is the claim that rooting is a viable defence against wrestling style takedowns, it is not.


I have to agree with Andrew here. (uh oh, I may get my membership from the CMA secret society revoked for agreeing with the MMA guy) 

Using "rooting" to defend against a takedown where you just attempt to out root the power of the takedown is breaking the principles behind rooting and not only breaks principles of CMA but its preety silly to try and do. 



Andrew Green said:


> Where I disagree is when people do treat traditional concepts, which have a function, as a magic bullet for everything.  Rooting, as a concept, is fine.  But IMO when people start making nonsense claims about how it is a super skill that beats all others they dimish any argument for the concept having any use at all.


I dont disagree and I'm not trying to say rooting is a magic bullet, but if your up for an experiement....
Start doing 10 straight minutes of low horse stance (staff across the knees) everyday (straight through, no getting up) for a month. Then compare your ability to defend a takedown with how it was before the horse stance training. If nothing else your legs will be crazy strong and that certainly can't hurt your defenses, eh? If your serious I would suggest starting at maybe 5 minutes a day rather than 10 straight. Your right, it doesn't do anything in and of itself but combined with your other training and skill its very usefull. 



Andrew Green said:


> That's a demo I know Randy Couture has been known for at seminars.  Line everyone up, tell them exactly how he is going to take them down and tell them to stop them, then proceed to land everyone of them on there back


Thats completely different from what he said though.


7sm


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

Excuse me but I have a couple questions

Could someone please point out where someone in the post, other than Andrew, said rooting would be a defense against a take down?

Also please point out to me how and where the heck this rooting all of a sudden became associated with "magic bullet"?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

very first post, and even the title of th thread.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew

You may want to reread tht with less bias. 



PeaceWarrior said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have heard of Taijiquan masters being able to root themselves so well that even many people cannot push them over. I have also heard of something similiar in Aikido, where one can become so firmly rooted in the ground that they cant be picked up or moved by anybody. I am wondering what the mechanics of this are and what training is necessary?
> 
> ...


 
Funny I see no mention of a magic bullet or a statement that says rooting is a defense against a take down. 

I see a thought and a question about it though. 

Nor have I seen anywhere else in the post where anyone other than you alluded to it as such.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> Excuse me but I have a couple questions
> 
> Could someone please point out where someone in the post, other than Andrew, said rooting would be a defense against a take down?
> 
> Also please point out to me how and where the heck this rooting all of a sudden became associated with "magic bullet"?


 

Yeah, dammit, the term I used was "Silver Bullet", not "Magic Bullet".  Now get it right!!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2006)

*Ok, and that is fine. No one I think will disagree there. But the issue is the claim that rooting is a viable defence against wrestling style takedowns, it is not.*

Well, I think we can agree, all by itself, it is not.  But strong rooting and strong stances, properly integrated into a well-trained  traditional art, can make for good defenses against all kinds of attacks, including wrestling style takedowns.

*Where I disagree is when people do treat traditional concepts, which have a function, as a magic bullet for everything. Rooting, as a concept, is fine. But IMO when people start making nonsense claims about how it is a super skill that beats all others they dimish any argument for the concept having any use at all.*

Agreed again, but where I disagree is when proponents of one art make claims about the effectiveness of other arts that they have not studied and do not understand.  I think we all need to remember to keep things in perspective.

*That's a demo I know Randy Couture has been known for at seminars. Line everyone up, tell them exactly how he is going to take them down and tell them to stop them, then proceed to land everyone of them on there back *

He is also an elite athlete and competitor, and it is unlikely that many people from any art could do well against him.  Just because someone of his caliber can do it, doesn't mean he has proven other methods to be worthless.  Again, a little perspective is needed here.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Agreed again, but where I disagree is when proponents of one art make claims about the effectiveness of other arts that they have not studied and do not understand.  I think we all need to remember to keep things in perspective.



Yep,  Like claiming a defence works against takedowns when everyone that trains in grappling says it won't 



> He is also an elite athlete and competitor, and it is unlikely that many people from any art could do well against him.  Just because someone of his caliber can do it, doesn't mean he has proven other methods to be worthless.  Again, a little perspective is needed here.




True, I can't... unless they got very little to no skills 

ps: sorry about the magi / silver bullet thing.  You also used "Magically" and I kinda merged them... my bad...


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2006)

*Yep, Like claiming a defence works against takedowns when everyone that trains in grappling says it won't *

I really think we all have a lot to learn from each other.  It's really frustrating when a thread gets started about something, and then the next thing we know, it's turned into another silly, pointless argument over MMA vs. Traditional.  I really believe that all approaches have a lot to offer.  

Each system has its specialty, and it certainly makes sense for others, who have a different specialty, to pay attention when the specialists speaks up on the topic.  MMA proponents probably test out their material harder than many (not all) traditionalists today do, and seem to look for the methods that most quickly develop effective skills.  OK, it makes sense for traditionalists to listen up when the MMA people want to share their experiences.

But traditionalists have methods that perhaps give greater longevity to one's practice, and can reap huge rewards further down the road, in addition to also being an effective and viable self defense method in the mean time.  MMA people would do well to listen up when the Traditionalists want to share some info about that.  

Granted, everyone can decide for themselves what information and approach and methods to embrace.  I for one have a dislike for the grappling arts.  I simply lack the interest to pursue them.  I trained a bit of judo while in college, with a buddy who had been a wrestler in high school, as well as a judo green belt.  It was just the two of us, throwing each other around in the padded exercise room, nothing formal about the training.  I actually enjoyed it at the time, but now I just don't feel the pull to train in that method.  OK, that's my choice.  But I also am very very clear and honest with myself about the fact that grappling is absolutely my weakest facet in my abilities and training.  I don't try to fool anyone about that, esp. myself.  It's just my choice.  I may decide to do something about that someday, there are some great judo and BJJ people here in San Francisco, I could certainly train with them.  But I just lack the interest, and I know that if I ever had to face one of them, if I allowed it to turn into a grapple, i'm in serious trouble.  

But I don't for a minute believe that my lack of grappling experience means I am useless in a fight, and neither do I believe the statistic that the Gracies like to toss around, about how most every fight goes to the ground.  I think that statistic is taken out of context and doesn't imply what they want it to imply, and they have used it very successfully as a marketing point in selling their art.  OK, good for them, but I think that statistic is actually somewhat deceptive.  I can't prove it, I don't have other statistics to back up what I am stating here, but something just smells a bit fishy with it.

I believe completely that the arts I have studied have tremendous merit.  I simply understand where my weak points are, and I accept that.

But getting back to my point, I get tired of watching the MMA people and Traditionalists trying to discredit each other.  It's just stupid and bogus, in either direction.  People need to open up a bit, listen to each other, take from it what you will, make your own decisions about it, but stop this irritating argumentive approach to these discussions.  And I direct this to the parties on both sides of the argument.  We really do have a lot that we can all learn from each other, if we would just stop arguing about it, and open our minds up a bit.


*ps: sorry about the magi / silver bullet thing. You also used "Magically" and I kinda merged them... my bad...*

just watch your step, next time ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:


> Each system has its specialty, and it certainly makes sense for others, who have a different specialty, to pay attention when the specialists speaks up on the topic.  MMA proponents probably test out their material harder than many (not all) traditionalists today do, and seem to look for the methods that most quickly develop effective skills.  OK, it makes sense for traditionalists to listen up when the MMA people want to share their experiences.
> 
> But traditionalists have methods that perhaps give greater longevity to one's practice, and can reap huge rewards further down the road, in addition to also being an effective and viable self defense method in the mean time.  MMA people would do well to listen up when the Traditionalists want to share some info about that.



Now if this could become a common view point we'd all be in much better shape


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Now if this could become a common view point we'd all be in much better shape


 

I guess we gotta start somewhere.


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> That, is a demonstration, a parlour trick, I can do unbendable arm demos too, but when it comes down to it, they don't mean much.


 
Depends on how you use it.  If I get my "unebndable arm" fused across your shoulders, I control the depth of our encounter pretty well.

What is a "parlour trick"?  a precise definition please.


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> So... show us...
> Ok, here's some of my guys trying to move me while I use it
> They are hardly trying, show us against someone outside your group.
> No.


 
that is not me and those are not my guys LOL
but I do know them and they don't "hardly try" anything, not with that teacher LOL.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Now if this could become a common view point we'd all be in much better shape


 
I think everyone in this post does.


----------



## dmax999 (Dec 14, 2006)

Not really jumping in on one side or the other but...

If high level Tai Chi experts could root themselves so no one could move them wouldn't a high level push hands competition be worthless?  Two guys shoving each other all day and neither moving.  Has anyone ever seen this happen?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2006)

dmax999 said:


> Not really jumping in on one side or the other but...
> 
> If high level Tai Chi experts could root themselves so no one could move them wouldn't a high level push hands competition be worthless? Two guys shoving each other all day and neither moving. Has anyone ever seen this happen?


 
Push hands is not shoving and if both well rooted and centered then there is no push hands. But you make a good point and that is why you train how to up root as well.


----------



## marlon (Dec 15, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> I will PM it to you later.


 
I would love to have some of the info in that PM concerning training ito root, please

Res[pectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Simple question, if it worked as well as some people claim, why on earth are wrestling teams not training this, and why would they laugh at you if you went in and suggested it?


 
Andrew, I think that it all has to do with what kind of attack angles the system is training to deal with.  One can root in a stance and have someone push in a particular direction and if the stance is good, simple physics will make it impossible for them to be moved.

However, if one understands the weaknesses of the body and its various positions, moving that person is effortless.

BTW - a good sprawl can be considered rooting because it is inheritly tied to the position of one's center of gravity.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 15, 2006)

I would disagree on a sprawl being like rooting, because a sprawl is not a static thing, it involves lots of adjusting, moving, fighting, and other elements.  Simply sprawling and holding will have little effect on stopping a takedown, the other person will just adjust there angle and put you on your back.

However you are right about the single line of attack can be positioned against.  Simple body position and knowing what angles things are strong / weak at.  And it is the problem with the demo's like the one above, the "attackers" only do one thing, at one angle, after the defender sets his position.  

Anyone that spends time doing submission grappling will learn that positioning is very important, a difference of a inch or two often means the difference of whether a lock can be finished, or will be escaped.  This is the same effect as seen in the video above.  The defender had good positioning, the attackers weak.  As they did not adjust or change there angles, they where not able to complete the attack.  

It's not rooting, or chi based, or anything fancy, its just body alignment (which I believe is claimed) and is something well known in sport arts as well.  The big difference is that it is not a staticlly trained or used skill.  

So lets try this, grappling theory 101...

New people, almost always have difficulty applying locks to the same effectiveness as the more advanced people.  Regardless of art, when the new guy tries a lock he is often met with blank stares.  When the instructor does it, it feels like your arm is going to get torn off.

Yet to the new guy he is doing the exact same thing, but without the pain.  Minor adjustments make the difference.  a couple degrees here, half a inch there and "OUCH!" it starts working.  Over the years people fine tune these angles and positioning, making the locks more effective with less effort.  I think its safe to say that goes for everything from sport grappling to Aikido.

So a very minor adjustment is what makes a technique go from ineffective, to effective.  The flipside also works, a minor adjustment on the defenders part can do he same.  This is why joints need to be isolated and controlled to apply a lock, you need to be able to control the opponents ability to free himself.

Now, just as you get better at adjusting to make things hurt more, you can get better at learning to adjust to make them hurt less.  If you train it, some people don't, they only train in static situations with the only thing getting covered is applying it, not escaping it.

So, overtime, it even becomes a little instinctual, you pick up that certain angles make things hurt, and others don't.  So when attacking you try to get to the ones that do, and avoid the ones that don't.

So far, this all goes fine for the video above.  He has merely positioned himself in such a way that the angles and leverage points of the attackers are useless against his posture.

However, nothing is static, and that is where strategy and adaptability come in.  Rarely do you get to try one technique attacking one angle and have it work.  There is usually a chain of things to set it up, follow ups when one thing doesn't work, etc.  

To take a traditional example, something I remember seeing as a "aikido arm wrestle,"  start of as a normal armwrestle, switch directions trapping the other persons hand with your other hand.  Again, grappling theory 101, don't attack strong angles, attack weak ones.  Force him to react one way and use it against him.

Same works in striking, strike at a low target to open up a high one.  So an important thing in defending is to protect against more then just one angle, and not over react.  If I drop both hands to block a low kick, I may very well stop the kick perfectly.  However the follow up punch to the chin is going to hurt a lot.

However most of the rooting examples I have seen are exactly that.  yes, it stops a attack on that angle, but opens up a ton of other things.  Basically the equivelant to blocking a low kick with both hands, yes, it does stop the kick, but it is still a bad idea.

"Rooting" may work very well in isolation, but that doesn't make it a good tactic.  It will fall apart when the isolation is removed and the other person begins adjusting to there defences, they will essentially stop the low kick but get KOed for exposing there face.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> I would disagree on a sprawl being like rooting, because a sprawl is not a static thing, it involves lots of adjusting, moving, fighting, and other elements. Simply sprawling and holding will have little effect on stopping a takedown, the other person will just adjust there angle and put you on your back.


 
Absolutely.  This is why a "rooted" position shifts and changes.  It isn't static and its all about manipulating your center of gravity.  A good sprawl keeps this low, prevents the opponent from getting underneath, and prevents them from getting any hooks.  All of this depends on getting and keeping your center of gravity in the right place.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 15, 2006)

I have yet to see that demonstrated, just many, many demos with only a static position and attack, or even a sequence of them.


----------



## pete (Dec 15, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> "Rooting" may work very well in isolation, but that doesn't make it a good tactic. It will fall apart when the isolation is removed and the other person begins adjusting to there defences,


 Just the opposite, it is a very good tactic.  however, one does not 'root' and fall asleep. even though you are rooted, you remain in motion (stand like mountain, move like great river). there is always change and you put youself into a superior position to use that change to your advantage.  what you are talking about here is basic stuff, and even an internal fighter with minimal experience should expect this, and treat the other persons adjustments as receiving new information to either fortify his root or move his center. we like more information, the more you give us the better we can use it against you.


----------

