# Anti-grappling.



## K-man

As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until *Hanzou* threw it in to take a low shot at WC. 

So we are all on the same page, here is the reference *Hanzou* used to put it down.

Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA

When I read the *Hanzou*'s posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.

Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.

So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc.  With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA. 

As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art. 

Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.

I look forward to some interesting discussion.
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until *Hanzou* threw it in to take a low shot at WC.
> 
> So we are all on the same page, here is the reference *Hanzou* used to put it down.
> 
> Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA
> 
> When I read the *Hanzou*'s posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.
> 
> So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc.  With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.
> 
> As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.
> 
> Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.
> 
> I look forward to some interesting discussion.
> :asian:



i read the the article and much of the theory and the ideas make sense. When he starts getting into some of the actual specifics of the implementation ... not so much. Telling someone who is mounted to attack the groin is unlikely to end well even against an untrained opponent. Against a skilled opponent it is going to get you hurt badly.

i'm all for stand-up martial artists knowing how to stop takedowns, escape bad positions on the ground, and regain the feet. You don't have to be an expert grappler to do that, although you do need to understand a subset of the grappling curriculum. There are even principles within Wing Chun which could probably help to develop those skills. I just don't have faith, based on what this guy has written, that he has a good program for this purpose.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> i read the the article and much of the theory and the ideas make sense. When he starts getting into some of the actual specifics of the implementation ... not so much. Telling someone who is mounted to attack the groin is unlikely to end well even against an untrained opponent. Against a skilled opponent it is going to get you hurt badly.
> 
> i'm all for stand-up martial artists knowing how to stop takedowns, escape bad positions on the ground, and regain the feet. You don't have to be an expert grappler to do that, although you do need to understand a subset of the grappling curriculum. There are even principles within Wing Chun which could probably help to develop those skills. I just don't have faith, based on what this guy has written, that he has a good program for this purpose.



By the way can we get one misconception straight first. I don't train for the ring. I am never going to be the next mma superstar. And a ring fight will only come secondary to my real life. If at all at the moment. But I do a job where I have to get physical and my training really helps.

I am not the only person who trains sport for the street.

Tony are you in this for metamoris or is there a self defence element in your training?


----------



## drop bear

And that is Stefan fischers article yes?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> By the way can we get one misconception straight first. I don't train for the ring. I am never going to be the next mma superstar. And a ring fight will only come secondary to my real life. If at all at the moment. But I do a job where I have to get physical and my training really helps.
> 
> I am not the only person who trains sport for the street.
> 
> Tony are you in this for metamoris or is there a self defence element in your training?



i'm primarily oriented towards self-defense application. I am working towards picking up a little BJJ competition experience on the side for fun and for the sake of my students who want to go that route, but it's a secondary consideration.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.



We should applaud them for creating an ineffective system that is untested against what it was supposedly designed to defend against? 

What makes all this even more dubious is the fact that its not like its hard to find a grappler to test this stuff on. It's not even hard to go to your local Bjj/MMA school and test this yourself. WT exponents refuse to test this stuff in any meaningful way. That's what makes this even worse.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> We should applaud them for creating an ineffective system that is untested against what it was supposedly designed to defend against?
> 
> What makes all this even more dubious is the fact that its not like its hard to find a grappler to test this stuff on. It's not even hard to go to your local Bjj/MMA school and test this yourself. WT exponents refuse to test this stuff in any meaningful way. That's what makes this even worse.


Apart from you, who is saying it is ineffective? Apart from you, who is saying it is untested? Do you really believe anyone of any note would try and improve their system without consulting people who actually know what they are talking about? I'm not the only one here who finds your posts offensive. Your attitude towards other styles is deplorable.

I haven't seen a lot of WC and I bet you can find some terrible video of WC, as you did with Krav and TKD, to totally prove that WC is a joke compared to the great stuff that all the guys like you, at the top of their game in BJJ can do. But at the end of the day these guys are developing their system to handle a grappler. Now if a great grappler, such as yourself, really wanted to be of assistance, perhaps you could offer your services to assist these poor guys, who obviously have never had access to people as tallented as you obviously must be, to make their system bombproof. Then they could actually go in to the Octagon on an equal footing and whip everybody's ****.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Apart from you, who is saying it is ineffective? Apart from you, who is saying it is untested?



Check the anti-grappling thread in the WC forum. Plenty of people besides me said it was embarrassing or ineffective.



> Do you really believe anyone of any note would try and improve their system without consulting people who actually know what they are talking about? I'm not the only one here who finds your posts offensive. Your attitude towards other styles is deplorable.



If they did, they would have come up with far better results.



> I haven't seen a lot of WC and I bet you can find some terrible video of WC, as you did with Krav and TKD, to totally prove that WC is a joke compared to the great stuff that all the guys like you, at the top of their game in BJJ can do. But at the end of the day these guys are developing their system to handle a grappler. Now if a great grappler, such as yourself, really wanted to be of assistance, perhaps you could offer your services to assist these poor guys, who obviously have never had access to people as tallented as you obviously must be, to make their system bombproof. Then they could actually go in to the Octagon on an equal footing and whip everybody's ****.



Well since you bought it up, how about you find a video of some bad Bjj. I'm sure its out there somewhere right?

If not, think about why that is exactly.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Well since you bought it up, how about you find a video of some bad Bjj. I'm sure its out there somewhere right?



Ask and ye shall receive


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Apart from you, who is saying it is ineffective? Apart from you, who is saying it is untested? Do you really believe anyone of any note would try and improve their system without consulting people who actually know what they are talking about? I'm not the only one here who finds your posts offensive. Your attitude towards other styles is deplorable.
> 
> I haven't seen a lot of WC and I bet you can find some terrible video of WC, as you did with Krav and TKD, to totally prove that WC is a joke compared to the great stuff that all the guys like you, at the top of their game in BJJ can do. But at the end of the day these guys are developing their system to handle a grappler. Now if a great grappler, such as yourself, really wanted to be of assistance, perhaps you could offer your services to assist these poor guys, who obviously have never had access to people as tallented as you obviously must be, to make their system bombproof. Then they could actually go in to the Octagon on an equal footing and whip everybody's ****.


Kman, what's your angle here?  You don't train WC.  You don't train BJJ or any other grappling art.  You seem to be speaking with some degree of authority on things about which you admit not having any experience.  What's the point other than to stir the pot and try to provoke the guy who's screen name you used liberally in the OP?  

If you can't see others here who are concerned about the implausibility of the techniques demonstrated in these anti-grappling videos, you're not "listening."


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Ask and ye shall receive



Two MMA guys fighting isn't Bjj.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

K-man said:


> As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until *Hanzou* threw it in to take a low shot at WC.
> 
> So we are all on the same page, here is the reference *Hanzou* used to put it down.
> 
> Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA
> 
> When I read the *Hanzou*'s posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.
> 
> So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc.  With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.
> 
> As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.
> 
> Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.
> 
> I look forward to some interesting discussion.
> :asian:



I only got round to reading that article today from the other thread and have to say it makes a lot of sense to me too, and I'm in complete agreement with the above. Although  as a WT student I guess that's entirely predictable.

I'm not going to get into the efficacy of the techniques (pointless) but I do find it interesting how some of us can read it and think it's a perfectly logical and reasonable approach for the context in which the art is designed to be used, and others think it's "fraudulent" and we all should just learn grappling instead.

Wouldn't the world be a dull place if people were all the same!


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Two MMA guys fighting isn't Bjj.


 It says in the title he's a "BJJ stylist".

So it must be true


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> It says in the title he's a "BJJ stylist".
> 
> So it must be true



And Shawn Obasi says he's a Wing Chun stylist when he's trained in MMA extensively.

Howabout a video from an actual Bjj school demonstrating a technique that looks pretty terrible?

Here's an example that fits right along with the thread;


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Kman, what's your angle here?  You don't train WC.  You don't train BJJ or any other grappling art.  You seem to be speaking with some degree of authority on things about which you admit not having any experience.  What's the point other than to stir the pot and try to provoke the guy who's screen name you used liberally in the OP?
> 
> If you can't see others here who are concerned about the implausibility of the techniques demonstrated in these anti-grappling videos, you're not "listening."


OK. I don't train WC and I have little knowledge of WC. What I do have is some of Emin Boztepe's material which I do refer to from time to time because I believe he has worked his WC into a RB form and because Okinawan Goju is heavily influenced by CMAs I can find similarities. 

I don't train BJJ but it is not true to say I don't train a grappling art. Aikido is a grappling art to a large extent and we train in a way to try and minimise the risk of being taken to the ground. You might call that anti-grappling in the context. Okinawan Goju is a grappling art. *All* the bunkai is hands on and designed to take your opponent to the ground without ending up there yourself. That also in this context is anti-grappling. Krav is a grappling art. The whole point of Krav is to get in, get control and finish with your opponent on the ground without going down yourself. If you go down too the training is to regain your feet ASAP. That also in this context is anti-grappling. 

Now, to my mind, BJJ is principally a ground grappling system. Please feel free to help me understand it more if this is the wrong opinion. If I was to be taken to the ground by an experienced BJJ guy I'm sure he would kick my ****. Against a less experienced person I'm sure I could hold my own. But my strength is standing up. I don't train to go to the ground. In that sense my training is anti-grappling as well.

Now I hadn't heard of the term 'anti-grappling' before *Hanzou*, you know, the guy with the screen name you declined to use, used it in a thread dissing WC, and I might say totally outside the topic of discussion. So I went looking to see what this anti-grappling was all about. What I read made perfect sense to me. The guys within that style of WC were trying to develop techniques within the WC system to combat opponents with grappling skills. Do you have an issue with that?

Most videos posted by *Hanzou* have been to point out another style's inadequacies. As far as I am aware there was just the one put up to demonstrate that all of WC's anti-grappling is 'fraudulent'. Now I am perfectly happy to listen to what people with more experience than me have to say. I have taken much from MT over the years and incorporated things into my training where they have been a fit or covered a hole. I haven't voiced an opinion one way or the other on the techniques incorporated into the WC anti-grappling. I saw what was posted and if, in the opinion of people like *Tony Dismukes* and others whose opinion I value, what is shown is poor technique I am more than happy to take it on board. 

So no, I am not stirring the pot. I posted this thread so the other thread wouldn't be thread-jacked by anti-grappling rhetoric. Perhaps if you read the threads with an open mind you might find I am not trying to provoke, I am calling BS when I see it and if you want to see examples where someone with no knowledge is provoking people with knowledge perhaps you might care to read any of the threads discussing kata bunkai.


----------



## Steve

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I only got round to reading that article today from the other thread and have to say it makes a lot of sense to me too, and I'm in complete agreement with the above. Although  as a WT student I guess that's entirely predictable.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the efficacy of the techniques (pointless) but I do find it interesting how some of us can read it and think it's a perfectly logical and reasonable approach for the context in which the art is designed to be used, and others think it's "fraudulent" and we all should just learn grappling instead.
> 
> Wouldn't the world be a dull place if people were all the same!



I think the rationale is perfectly logical.  It has everything to do with the efficacy of the actual techniques.  It's the application of the philosophy that raises some questions.  
That you think it's pointless to get into the efficacy of the techniques is insight into the ongoing miscommunication.   You guys are speaking philosophically.  Others, including me, distinguish between the theory and the application.  

I think a lot of this could really work well if trained with people who are competent grapplers.  I've said so several times, and so have others, including hanzou.  I also believe that the application of WC philosophies and principles would look different if tested against competent grapplers.  I've pointed out some very concerning techniques demonstrated in other threads.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Steve said:


> I think the rationale is perfectly logical.  It has everything to do with the efficacy of the actual techniques.  It's the application of the philosophy that raises some questions.
> That you think it's pointless to get into the efficacy of the techniques is insight into the ongoing miscommunication.   You guys are speaking philosophically.  Others, including me, distinguish between the theory and the application.
> 
> I think a lot of this could really work well if trained with people who are competent grapplers.  I've said so several times, and so have others, including hanzou.  I also believe that the application of WC philosophies and principles would look different if tested against competent grapplers.  I've pointed out some very concerning techniques demonstrated in other threads.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Fair comment.

I'll just clarify my pointless remark: 

Firstly it's absolutely pointless for ME to discuss the efficacy of the techniques as I'm a WT student not a master, and have no specific knowledge of grappling/ground fighting.

Secondly I'm of the opinion that it's fairly pointless for anyone to discuss them as it invariably ends up as a "well If you do this I'll do that" "no you couldn't" or "that wouldn't work" type of argument, which really solves nothing. 

I'd love to see the anti-grappling stuff properly tested as it were, and it's success or failure, but as it hasn't happened yet the jury is still out for me and will remain so until I either see it properly tested or actually test it myself. 

You guys can of course continue to discuss it's efficacy all you want, and no doubt will


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Fair comment.
> 
> I'll just clarify my pointless remark:
> 
> Firstly it's absolutely pointless for ME to discuss the efficacy of the techniques as I'm a WT student not a master, and have no specific knowledge of grappling/ground fighting.
> 
> Secondly I'm of the opinion that it's fairly pointless for anyone to discuss them as it invariably ends up as a "well If you do this I'll do that" "no you couldn't" or "that wouldn't work" type of argument, which really solves nothing.
> 
> I'd love to see the anti-grappling stuff properly tested as it were, and it's success or failure, but as it hasn't happened yet the jury is still out for me and will remain so until I either see it properly tested or actually test it myself.
> 
> You guys can of course continue to discuss it's efficacy all you want, and no doubt will



The fact that its been around for over 20 years, and no one has tested it, should speak volumes to anyone paying attention.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> we all should just learn grappling instead.



When a boxer tries to learn wrestling, it doesn't mean that boxer thinks the wrestling style is superior than the boxing style. It simply means that he wants to expand his knowledge in the "combat" art. There should be no shame for any striker to cross train the grappling art.

Most of the "anti-grappling" discussion are only on the "ground game" level. IMO, the term "anti-grappling" means the following:

1. prevent a clinch from happening,
2. take advantage on the clinch,
3. avoid to be taken down,
4. ground game skill.

We definitely should address issues in all 4 levels. But we should discuss the 1st level, 2nd level, 3rd level before we can move into the 4th level. 

In order to prevent a clinch from happening (1st level), you have to have the knowledge not to let your opponent to get you into a situation such as:

- head lock, 
- double over hook
 - arm wrap,
- double under hook,
- bear hug,
- waist wrap,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- ...

Since all those skills may not exist in the striking art, you do need to learn the grappling art.

In order to be able to reach to level 2, level 3, or even level 4, you will need much more knowledge in the grappling art. So you have to learn "grappling" in order to be able to do "anti-grappling". The funniest thing is after you have learned the "grappling", the term "anti-grappling" will no longer have any meaning. If you are a communist, you will never use the term "anti-communist".

In the following Taiji clip, those "Taiji guys" don't consider themselves as pure strikers and that's for sure.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Ask and ye shall receive



i have no idea what (if any) Mr. Rodriguez's BJJ qualifications are, but I will note that Mr. Obasi used what I would consider to be decent "anti-grappling" technique.

Of course, that  might have something to do with the fact that Mr. Obasi has trained BJJ as well as Wing Chun.


----------



## Danny T

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Ask and ye shall receive


Man said he is 26 and 0. 
His strength; "Great JuJitsu Skills" and "Very Quick for a man my size"
From his performance in this video I can understand anyone questioning his statements.


> And Shawn Obasi says he's a Wing Chun stylist when he's trained in MMA extensively.


So by that standard any BJJer who has extensive MMA training is no longer a BJJer?

I have training in MMA and I train MMA fighters; that doesn't mean I'm no longer a wing chunner. I also have training with GJJ through Ricardio Murgel and Pedro Sauer, and Allen Baker (also a wing chunner).  Have BJJ training with Jean Jacque Machado, Rey Diego, and Erik Paulson (shooto & catch wrestling also). That doesn't mean I'm no longer a wing chunner. I train in and am an instructor in Muay Thai that doesn't mean I am not a wing chunner. 


> WT exponents refuse to test this stuff in any meaningful way.


Just as there are BJJ exponents that refuse to understand and test other things in any real meaningful way (like knife). And as per my above statement there are many WC people who do. It seems just not in your limited knowledge of the wing chun world. 

One GJJ person who has embraced learning some wc, fma, and muay thai is Pedro Sauer who has been training with my WC Sifu as well as Guro Dan Inosanto. He has realized his understand of many aspects of the martial arts was limited and is adding that to his skill sets. Will he no longer be a GJJist?

Does wing chun have all the answers to all things - no.
Neither does BJJ. How about let's help bolster rather than criticize. BJJ is awesome, for what it was designed for. Muay Thai is awesome, for what it has been developed for. Boxing is awesome, for what it has developed into. BJJ came from Judo and had a long time to develop through trial and error. Something the Gracie's acknowledge. WC is a dynamic system meaning it is constantly researching, polishing, and learning. Some of us have not attempted to redevelop the wheel so to speak while others have taken a different approach. At least they trying and researching. In time they will either learn or struggle. With that, there are a lot of things in Judo not in BJJ, why? There are a lot of things in BJJ not in Judo, why? Judo came from Jujitsu and there are some huge differences from JJJ to Judo to BJJ. A lot of what is in JJJ is in Karate that you also discredit yet BJJ is but an offshoot of JJJ. All of the arts are good for something and are lacking for other things. Acknowledge the good and help strengthen the weak rather than criticize.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Fair comment.
> 
> I'll just clarify my pointless remark:
> 
> Firstly it's absolutely pointless for ME to discuss the efficacy of the techniques as I'm a WT student not a master, and have no specific knowledge of grappling/ground fighting.
> 
> Secondly I'm of the opinion that it's fairly pointless for anyone to discuss them as it invariably ends up as a "well If you do this I'll do that" "no you couldn't" or "that wouldn't work" type of argument, which really solves nothing.
> 
> I'd love to see the anti-grappling stuff properly tested as it were, and it's success or failure, but as it hasn't happened yet the jury is still out for me and will remain so until I either see it properly tested or actually test it myself.
> 
> You guys can of course continue to discuss it's efficacy all you want, and no doubt will



Fair enough. Actual testing is always preferable to declarations of opinion about what would or would not work.

In the spirit of said testing, anyone who is in the Lexington KY area is welcome to come by 4 Seasons MMA and try to punch me in the groin while I am mounted on you. I won't even wear a cup. It will be scientific research. (I do get to hit back.)

I don't get into challenge matches. There are tons of guys (and probably some ladies) from any style you can name who could kick my *** in a fight. However I am confident enough that this is a poor tactic from that position that it would be worth taking a few nut punches to find out I was wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> So by that standard any BJJer who has extensive MMA training is no longer a BJJer?



Extensive MMA experience while participating in a MMA match? No, I would not consider you Bjj. At that point you're MMA.



> Just as there are BJJ exponents that refuse to understand and test other things in any real meaningful way (like knife).



That's quite a false equivalency you have there.



> WC is a dynamic system meaning it is constantly researching, polishing, and learning.



But not testing. That's why we have crap like "anti-grappling".


----------



## Danny T

> That's quite a false equivalency you have there.


??? Just stated the wc people I work with do test in a meaningful way. It is you who refuse to accept it. There are some who don't; I agree. There exponents in BJJ that don't test their knife work in the same manner as some don't test their 'anti-grappling' as you and they call it. Why is it different, because they are BJJ and of course all BJJ test everything they do in a meaningful manner even when it's not? Get over yourself. BJJ is good but it has it's limitations as well. And some BJJ exponent's knife work is bad. You present yourself as not able or unwilling to acknowledge or accept it. Your passion for BJJ is admirable but your stubborn lack of accepting that it has its limitations is not.



> But not testing. That's why we have crap like "anti-grappling".


Well for us testing is a part of the learning. We research, drill, test, repeat the drill and testing, evaluate. Do it Often.
Others may not. 

I also recommend you get with a decent knifer and test your knife defensive skills. Make certain you acknowledge every point of pressure from the point and/or blade edge is a puncture or cut. Do it without the gi, use a marker for safety and acknowledge all the cuts as bloody tissue and muscle damage. Your arms and legs become very weak, your grip becomes as that of a child. Abdomen and chest punctures, lung, heart, kidney damage, neck damage. Strength and cardio wane in seconds.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> Just as there are BJJ exponents that refuse to understand and test other things in any real meaningful way (like knife).


Just want to comment quickly on this statement.  I kind of see where you're going, and it's true that sparring such as Tony Dismukes has described can be less common in some BJJ schools.  A key distinction here, however, is that I (a pretty typical BJJ guy, I think) understand and acknowledge the holes in my training.  I can either be okay with these holes or address them only because I have acknowledged them.  If I were to choose to address weapons, for example, I'd probably look at Arnis or maybe Krav Maga.  I wouldn't go to BJJ.

Point isn't that BJJ is bad, or WC is bad, or anything else.  Every style has holes of some kind.  

The concern for me isn't that WC has a gap.  It's the approach to filling that gap that is of concern.  WC proponents seem to have circled the wagons and tried to invent a solution to fighting 'the grappler' without the collaboration of competent grapplesr.  The thing is, at least in the techniques I've seen displayed, they haven't actually developed them anywhere near an actual "grappler."  The result is what you'd expect.  

Before anyone gives me the, "Well, I train with plenty of grapplers" spiel, I believe you.  I'm talking about the videos I've seen.  The "experts" who are sharing techniques.  Those guys.  Not you.


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> Just want to comment quickly on this statement.  I kind of see where you're going, and it's true that sparring such as Tony Dismukes has described can be less common in some BJJ schools.  A key distinction here, however, is that I (a pretty typical BJJ guy, I think) understand and acknowledge the holes in my training.  I can either be okay with these holes or address them only because I have acknowledged them.  If I were to choose to address weapons, for example, I'd probably look at Arnis or maybe Krav Maga.  I wouldn't go to BJJ.
> 
> Point isn't that BJJ is bad, or WC is bad, or anything else.  Every style has holes of some kind.
> 
> The concern for me isn't that WC has a gap.  It's the approach to filling that gap that is of concern.  WC proponents seem to have circled the wagons and tried to invent a solution to fighting 'the grappler' without the collaboration of competent grapplesr.  The thing is, at least in the techniques I've seen displayed, they haven't actually developed them anywhere near an actual "grappler."  The result is what you'd expect.
> 
> Before anyone gives me the, "Well, I train with plenty of grapplers" spiel, I believe you.  I'm talking about the videos I've seen.  The "experts" who are sharing techniques.  Those guys.  Not you.



  Agreed, there is a large WC family and their exponents who have done so and their grappling skills are terrible, just as there are many WC exponents who have actually gone out and are training with grapplers. My point is the criticism is being made by BJJer&#8217;s who will not acknowledge the same is true by some BJJ exponents about holes in their training. There is a large BJJ family who have instructions and videos on knife defense that is terrible. These are also experts but are instructing bladed tactics that will get you hurt badly and when that was brought up it is defended as "well it's better that 'anti-grappling'".

They both need to acknowledge the lack of understanding and skill; and get expert training in the respected fields.


----------



## Steve

Danny T said:


> Agreed, there is a large WC family and their exponents who have done so and their grappling skills are terrible, just as there are many WC exponents who have actually gone out and are training with grapplers. My point is the criticism is being made by BJJers who will not acknowledge the same is true by some BJJ exponents about holes in their training. There is a large BJJ family who have instructions and videos on knife defense that is terrible. These are also experts but are instructing bladed tactics that will get you hurt badly and when that was brought up it is defended as "well it's better that 'anti-grappling'".
> 
> They both need to acknowledge the lack of understanding and skill; and get expert training in the respected fields.



I would agree that both should acknowledge holes.  I think, and maybe it's just my homerism, that sport arts are far more willing to do this than non sport arts.   I think if you started a thread about knife fighting in Bjj, you'd be pleasantly surprised were you to start that thread.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

One of the issues with anti grappling as a concept is where are you getting your grapplers from? So even with the correct fundamentals (and I  don't know Stefan Fischer,s system) you will hit a point where to progress in skill the other guy really needs to know how to take you down.

Same with knife by the way. To properly defend the other guy should know how to properly stab you.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I would agree that both should acknowledge holes.  I think, and maybe it's just my homerism, that sport arts are far more willing to do this than non sport arts.   I think if you started a thread about knife fighting in Bjj, you'd be pleasantly surprised were you to start that thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The concept of resisted training with no theoretical out would come into play here. Does this work? Let's test and see. If it doesn't there has to be a hole in the system.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> ??? Just stated the wc people I work with do test in a meaningful way. It is you who refuse to accept it. There are some who don't; I agree. There exponents in BJJ that don't test their knife work in the same manner as some don't test their 'anti-grappling' as you and they call it. Why is it different, because they are BJJ and of course all BJJ test everything they do in a meaningful manner even when it's not? Get over yourself. BJJ is good but it has it's limitations as well. And some BJJ exponent's knife work is bad. You present yourself as not able or unwilling to acknowledge or accept it. Your passion for BJJ is admirable but your stubborn lack of accepting that it has its limitations is not.



Its different because no one in Bjj is calling Knife defense "anti-knife fighting" and making crazy claims about its effectiveness. Bjj knife defense is your standard unarmed MA knife defense stuff. Karate, Kung Fu, TKD, and other arts have similar basic forms of knife self defense. None of them make effectiveness claims on the level that WC anti-grappling does.



> Well for us testing is a part of the learning. We research, drill, test, repeat the drill and testing, evaluate. Do it Often.
> Others may not.



Sorry, but that isn't what I'm seeing out of WC anti-grappling. 



> I also recommend you get with a decent knifer and test your knife defensive skills. Make certain you acknowledge every point of pressure from the point and/or blade edge is a puncture or cut. Do it without the gi, use a marker for safety and acknowledge all the cuts as bloody tissue and muscle damage. Your arms and legs become very weak, your grip becomes as that of a child. Abdomen and chest punctures, lung, heart, kidney damage, neck damage. Strength and cardio wane in seconds.



In the other thread I stated plainly that I would seek out a MA more specialized in knife use and knife defense if I ever desired that type of training. I wouldn't watch Arnis or Silat videos and combine them with Bjj movements and proclaim that I now have the ability to defeat skilled knife fighters. 

As Steve pointed out, every art has a hole in their training. WC stylists have decided to plug their training hole with a silly fighting method, and surrounded that silly method with even sillier claims of effectiveness and history.

Oh and btw, I'm not bagging on WC, I'm bagging on anti-grappling. I don't view anti-grappling as a legitimate part of WC kung fu.


----------



## RTKDCMB

I don't see a difference between a Wing Chun coming up with anti-grappling and BJJ coming up with anti-striking.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't see a difference between a Wing Chun coming up with anti-grappling and BJJ coming up with anti-striking.



 Grappling kind of nullifies striking a bit more than striking nullifies grappling. That was kind of the big thing about bjj back in the day.


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, this looks like fun&#8230; 



Tony Dismukes said:


> i read the the article and much of the theory and the ideas make sense. When he starts getting into some of the actual specifics of the implementation ... not so much. Telling someone who is mounted to attack the groin is unlikely to end well even against an untrained opponent. Against a skilled opponent it is going to get you hurt badly.
> 
> i'm all for stand-up martial artists knowing how to stop takedowns, escape bad positions on the ground, and regain the feet. You don't have to be an expert grappler to do that, although you do need to understand a subset of the grappling curriculum. There are even principles within Wing Chun which could probably help to develop those skills. I just don't have faith, based on what this guy has written, that he has a good program for this purpose.



Out of interest, Tony, can you highlight in the article where there are any specifics? I didn't note any on my repeated readings&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> We should applaud them for creating an ineffective system that is untested against what it was supposedly designed to defend against?



Well, that's the question&#8230; what is it designed to defend against? I have yet to see any indication that it's actually meant to deal with what you think it is&#8230;  



Hanzou said:


> What makes all this even more dubious is the fact that its not like its hard to find a grappler to test this stuff on. It's not even hard to go to your local Bjj/MMA school and test this yourself. WT exponents refuse to test this stuff in any meaningful way. That's what makes this even worse.



What are you basing this idea on? I've seen you talk about the lack of testing a fair bit&#8230; how involved in the development of this system were you?



Hanzou said:


> Well since you bought it up, how about you find a video of some bad Bjj. I'm sure its out there somewhere right?
> 
> If not, think about why that is exactly.



Ah, you do make such enticing offers&#8230; okay, first let's look at why "bad BJJ" can be an interesting thing to try to find. One major reason is that the vast, vast majority of clips are BJJ operating in their own context&#8230; one where they are in control of the environment, in a competitive context (which is what it's geared towards, both in development and in training), and so on. But you asked for some bad videos? Okay...





I call this one "how to get died with sharp things real quick"&#8230; 





This one is "I'm on holiday, and want to shave off those last two pounds in my stomach"&#8230; 





This is "Aliveness is everything til you're dead!"



Steve said:


> I think the rationale is perfectly logical.  It has everything to do with the efficacy of the actual techniques.  It's the application of the philosophy that raises some questions.
> That you think it's pointless to get into the efficacy of the techniques is insight into the ongoing miscommunication.   You guys are speaking philosophically.  Others, including me, distinguish between the theory and the application.
> 
> I think a lot of this could really work well if trained with people who are competent grapplers.  I've said so several times, and so have others, including hanzou.  I also believe that the application of WC philosophies and principles would look different if tested against competent grapplers.  I've pointed out some very concerning techniques demonstrated in other threads.



Thing is, and I know I've said this a few times already (here and elsewhere), is that what it's really designed to go against? All the indications are, frankly, that it's not&#8230; so perhaps if the BJJ guys didn't think it was about them, it might start to make a bit more sense&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> The fact that its been around for over 20 years, and no one has tested it, should speak volumes to anyone paying attention.



Once more, where did you get the idea of it not being tested? Do you think that testing only means going up against BJJ in a competition? 



Tony Dismukes said:


> i have no idea what (if any) Mr. Rodriguez's BJJ qualifications are, but I will note that Mr. Obasi used what I would consider to be decent "anti-grappling" technique.
> 
> Of course, that  might have something to do with the fact that Mr. Obasi has trained BJJ as well as Wing Chun.



Would you class that as "anti-grappling"? Or just "grappling"?



Tony Dismukes said:


> Fair enough. Actual testing is always preferable to declarations of opinion about what would or would not work.
> 
> In the spirit of said testing, anyone who is in the Lexington KY area is welcome to come by 4 Seasons MMA and try to punch me in the groin while I am mounted on you. I won't even wear a cup. It will be scientific research. (I do get to hit back.)
> 
> I don't get into challenge matches. There are tons of guys (and probably some ladies) from any style you can name who could kick my *** in a fight. However I am confident enough that this is a poor tactic from that position that it would be worth taking a few nut punches to find out I was wrong.



I haven't seen any reference to striking the groin against a mount&#8230; it's been brought up once or twice&#8230; but I haven't seen the original source&#8230; anything you can link?



Hanzou said:


> That's quite a false equivalency you have there.



Actually, no, it's not.



Hanzou said:


> But not testing. That's why we have crap like "anti-grappling".



Er&#8230; you might want to remind yourself of the "art-bashing" rules&#8230; and again, who said it wasn't (and isn't currently being) tested?



Steve said:


> Just want to comment quickly on this statement.  I kind of see where you're going, and it's true that sparring such as Tony Dismukes has described can be less common in some BJJ schools.  A key distinction here, however, is that I (a pretty typical BJJ guy, I think) understand and acknowledge the holes in my training.  I can either be okay with these holes or address them only because I have acknowledged them.  If I were to choose to address weapons, for example, I'd probably look at Arnis or maybe Krav Maga.  I wouldn't go to BJJ.



I get where you're coming from, Steve, but it doesn't really work that way&#8230; for one thing, someone attending a Wing Chun school is more likely looking for a more "complete" package than someone attending a BJJ school&#8230; so really, what you would do doesn't quite register here.



Steve said:


> Point isn't that BJJ is bad, or WC is bad, or anything else.  Every style has holes of some kind.


 
"Holes" is not the way I would describe it. 



Steve said:


> The concern for me isn't that WC has a gap.  It's the approach to filling that gap that is of concern.  WC proponents seem to have circled the wagons and tried to invent a solution to fighting 'the grappler' without the collaboration of competent grapplesr.  The thing is, at least in the techniques I've seen displayed, they haven't actually developed them anywhere near an actual "grappler."  The result is what you'd expect.


 
Yeah&#8230; I really think you're thinking they're doing something they're not&#8230; the idea isn't to "beat grapplers", it's how to avoid ending up in a grappling engagement (in a street encounter&#8230; which means, broadly, not a skilled competitor/BJJ guy)&#8230; that's the idea of "anti-grappling"&#8230; it's how to avoid being in a position where you have to rely on something that they know they don't do&#8230; deliberately. It really seems like the name is tripping you guys up&#8230; "anti-grappling" does not equal "anti-grapplers"&#8230; and, seriously, "grappling" does not equal BJJ&#8230; there's a hell of a lot more to it than what you guys do, frankly. 



Steve said:


> Before anyone gives me the, "Well, I train with plenty of grapplers" spiel, I believe you.  I'm talking about the videos I've seen.  The "experts" who are sharing techniques.  Those guys.  Not you.



Hmm&#8230; 



Steve said:


> I would agree that both should acknowledge holes.  I think, and maybe it's just my homerism, that sport arts are far more willing to do this than non sport arts.   I think if you started a thread about knife fighting in Bjj, you'd be pleasantly surprised were you to start that thread.



Honestly, Steve, I disagree. To be blunt, sports systems are one of the least willing&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> One of the issues with anti grappling as a concept is where are you getting your grapplers from? So even with the correct fundamentals (and I  don't know Stefan Fischer,s system) you will hit a point where to progress in skill the other guy really needs to know how to take you down.



Yeah&#8230; still looking at the wrong intention, I feel&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Same with knife by the way. To properly defend the other guy should know how to properly stab you.



What is "knowing how to stab properly"? Kali? Takeuchi Ryu? Systema? Aikido? Amok? Boatman Knife Combat? Any of the above? None of the above? Something different altogether? 

Are you aware of the differences? Or why they're different?



Hanzou said:


> Its different because no one in Bjj is calling Knife defense "anti-knife fighting" and making crazy claims about its effectiveness. Bjj knife defense is your standard unarmed MA knife defense stuff. Karate, Kung Fu, TKD, and other arts have similar basic forms of knife self defense. None of them make effectiveness claims on the level that WC anti-grappling does.



Well, the very claim that they have feasible knife defence I'd consider "crazy"&#8230; the Rener and Rorion show above is another case in point&#8230; but are you saying that your issue really is just with the name? Really?

And, again, where does Wing Chun's "anti-grappling" make any kind of claim the way you suggest here?



Hanzou said:


> Sorry, but that isn't what I'm seeing out of WC anti-grappling.



And, again, you're looking for the wrong things.



Hanzou said:


> In the other thread I stated plainly that I would seek out a MA more specialized in knife use and knife defense if I ever desired that type of training. I wouldn't watch Arnis or Silat videos and combine them with Bjj movements and proclaim that I now have the ability to defeat skilled knife fighters.



Yeah&#8230; again, I'd like to see where such claims are being made. 



Hanzou said:


> As Steve pointed out, every art has a hole in their training. WC stylists have decided to plug their training hole with a silly fighting method, and surrounded that silly method with even sillier claims of effectiveness and history.



"Art-bashing"&#8230; careful&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Oh and btw, I'm not bagging on WC, I'm bagging on anti-grappling. I don't view anti-grappling as a legitimate part of WC kung fu.



Yes, you are. Whether or not you regard it as "legitimate" is really besides the point.



drop bear said:


> Grappling kind of nullifies striking a bit more than striking nullifies grappling. That was kind of the big thing about bjj back in the day.



Ha!

No. That was the (false) marketing back in the day&#8230;


----------



## RTKDCMB

Chris Parker said:


>



After closer  inspection of that video I have determined that it was in jest. Just another example of Poe's law in action.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't see a difference between a Wing Chun coming up with anti-grappling and BJJ coming up with anti-striking.



What is "anti-striking"?

Also there is striking in Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Well, that's the question&#8230; what is it designed to defend against? I have yet to see any indication that it's actually meant to deal with what you think it is&#8230;



Wouldn't something called "anti-grappling" be designed to defend against "Grapplers"?



> What are you basing this idea on?



The fact that anti-grappling isn't effective against grappling.



> I've seen you talk about the lack of testing a fair bit&#8230; how involved in the development of this system were you?



What does that even mean? 



> Ah, you do make such enticing offers&#8230; okay, first let's look at why "bad BJJ" can be an interesting thing to try to find. One major reason is that the vast, vast majority of clips are BJJ operating in their own context&#8230; one where they are in control of the environment, in a competitive context (which is what it's geared towards, both in development and in training), and so on. But you asked for some bad videos? Okay...
> 
> I call this one "how to get died with sharp things real quick"&#8230;



A video of two guys joking around.



> This one is "I'm on holiday, and want to shave off those last two pounds in my stomach"&#8230;
> 
> This is "Aliveness is everything til you're dead!"



Both of which are no different than your typical MA knife defense you see in other systems.



> Thing is, and I know I've said this a few times already (here and elsewhere), is that what it's really designed to go against? All the indications are, frankly, that it's not&#8230; so perhaps if the BJJ guys didn't think it was about them, it might start to make a bit more sense&#8230;



Again, are we to assume that "anti-grappling" isn't meant to defend against grapplers or people who grapple?



> but are you saying that your issue really is just with the name? Really?



My issue is with the techniques applied.



> And, again, where does Wing Chun's "anti-grappling" make any kind of claim the way you suggest here?



Right from the horse's mouth;



> In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun&#8217;ers.
> 
> *He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure*.
> 
> This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun



http://www.everythingwingchun.com/Victor-Gutierrez-Wing-Tsun-DVD-09-p/vg09.htm




> Emin Boztepe takes on the grappler. In this DVD, he demonstrates effective techniques for *countering anything a grappler might use.* Bonus escrima techniques are again included.




http://www.everythingwingchun.com/Emin-Boztepe-Combat-Martial-Arts-DVD-Vol-3-p/eb03.htm




> Steve Cottrell is a Wing Chun Instructor who used his art for government counter terrorist and special operations units.
> Teaching the art since 1983, he brings unparalleled experience and expertise to the study of Wing Chun.
> 
> This Video Series teaches how to win as a grappler closes, engages, or attempts a takedown! Not for "Sport Competition"!
> DVD 1- Grappler Beating Basics Essential Info! Train to dominate opponents using timing attacks, counter grabs, winning in the clench and much more
> DVD 2- Grappler Beating in Action Wing Chun vs. the Grappler! How to win as a grappler closes, engages or attempts a takedown. Again, Not For Sport Competition!




http://www.ajtvp.com/cart/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=54

Master Cottrell in action;






How about you tell us how a system called "anti-grappling" (or counter grappling) isn't claiming to be an effective defense against grappling.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> Out of interest, Tony, can you highlight in the article where there are any specifics? I didn't note any on my repeated readings&#8230;





Chris Parker said:


> I haven't seen any reference to striking the groin against a mount&#8230; it's been brought up once or twice&#8230; but I haven't seen the original source&#8230; anything you can link?



From K-Man's link, 6th paragraph: "_Attacking the groin, which is not allowed in MMA, on the street, is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position."
_


Chris Parker said:


> Would you class that as "anti-grappling"? Or just "grappling"?



Yes.

Mr. Obasi repeatedly stuffed his opponent's takedown attempts in order to stay standing and finish the fight using his WC striking skills. That's the "anti-grappling" we're talking about, yes?

Of course (as has been pointed out) doing so requires a subset of actual grappling skills.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> After closer  inspection of that video I have determined that it was in jest. Just another example of Poe's law in action.



Yeah, to further clarify, it's a couple of BJJers satirizing some of the developments in modern sport BJJ competition which involve guard pulling, intricate grip setups, and techniques which work within the rules but would be suicide in a street fight.  It only makes sense if you know what they're making fun of.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't see a difference between a Wing Chun coming up with anti-grappling and BJJ coming up with anti-striking.



"Anti-striking" isn't a BJJ term, but I think I know what you mean.

The difference would be that the Gracie family developed and tested their "anti-striking" (if you choose to call it that) via hundreds of bare-knuckle challenge matches and street fights with actual strikers of all varieties and in many cases recorded the matches on video for posterity. They didn't armchair theorize based on poor assumptions about how a boxer, karateka, or kung fu exponent would attack.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Grappling kind of nullifies striking a bit more than striking nullifies grappling. That was kind of the big thing about bjj back in the day.



That depends on the grappler and striker, it's a bit hard to grapple when you are knocked unconscious.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> What is "anti-striking"?
> 
> Also there is striking in Bjj.



And I am sure there is grappling in WC.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And I am sure there is grappling in WC.



And where can we go to see these WC masters using their grappling skills against highly skilled grapplers? When has a WC master stepped up and challenged professional grapplers to show his/her skill in a public arena or showcase?

Oh that's right, *never*.

As Tony said, Bjj has already proven that it is effective against striking. Say what you will about the Gracies and Bjj, but at least they stepped to the plate and put their butts on the line to prove their claims. We have hundreds of challenge matches and thousands of MMA and NHB fights to pull from to validate their claims. No one doubts the validity of BJJ versus a person punching and kicking, but the difference is that the exponents of Bjj * earned* that respect.

WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same.


----------



## Danny T

RTKDCMB said:


> And I am sure there is grappling in WC.



Yeah, but not defined nor refined as what is BJJ. There is grappling in Muay Thai, Shotokan, Boxing, and many other 'striking' arts as well. Again not defined the same as Judo, BJJ, GJJ, Catch, Sambo, etc.


----------



## Buka

Scientists say: "we will develop perfect people before we develop a prefect martial art for all people." 
Congress to hold hearings.

 And I'm sure we'll start a thread on the best way to hold those damn hearings, too.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> From K-Man's link, 6th paragraph: "_Attacking the groin, which is not allowed in MMA, on the street, is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position."
> _





> For argument sake let&#8217;s imagine we end up on the back and someone is sitting in full mount on top of us (which in MMA would be one of the most dominant positions). This is not so the case on the street as the person on top of you with 99% certainty will expose his groin to attack. Attacking the groin, which is not allowed in MMA, on the street, is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position.


With respect, what you are quoting is being taken out of context. What is written here is an example of a situation, not a specific defence against the mount. Secondly, if I am reading it correctly, it specifically excludes a trained grappler by saying that on the street there is a high probability that the groin will be exposed. Obviously attacking the groin is not always an option and if it is available it is not necessarily the best option, but it is a legitimate target in RBSD. 
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> And where can we go to see these WC masters using their grappling skills against highly skilled grapplers? When has a WC master stepped up and challenged professional grapplers to show his/her skill in a public arena or showcase?
> 
> Oh that's right, *never*.
> 
> As Tony said, Bjj has already proven that it is effective against striking. Say what you will about the Gracies and Bjj, but at least they stepped to the plate and put their butts on the line to prove their claims. We have hundreds of challenge matches and thousands of MMA and NHB fights to pull from to validate their claims. No one doubts the validity of BJJ versus a person punching and kicking, but the difference is that the exponents of Bjj * earned* that respect.
> 
> WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same.



Not every martial art feels the need to challenge everybody or stroke their own ego and not every art wants or needs to or is designed for competition. I am not sure what upsets you so much about an art besides BJJ that dares to suggest they have grappling in it


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Not every martial art feels the need to challenge everybody or stroke their own ego and not every art wants or needs to or is designed for competition. I am not sure what upsets you so much about an art besides BJJ that dares to suggest they have grappling in it



It has nothing to do with stroking an ego. It has everything to do with making claims like this;



> _Emin Boztepe takes on the grappler. In this DVD, he demonstrates effective techniques for _*countering anything a grappler might use. Bonus escrima techniques are again included.*





> _In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun&#8217;ers. _
> 
> _*He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure*._
> 
> _This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun_


With absolutely nothing to back it up.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> *And where can we go to see these WC masters using their grappling skills against highly skilled grapplers? When has a WC master stepped up and challenged professional grapplers to show his/her skill in a public arena or showcase?
> *
> Oh that's right, *never*.
> 
> As Tony said, Bjj has already proven that it is effective against striking. Say what you will about the Gracies and Bjj, but at least they stepped to the plate and put their butts on the line to prove their claims. We have hundreds of challenge matches and thousands of MMA and NHB fights to pull from to validate their claims. No one doubts the validity of BJJ versus a person punching and kicking, but the difference is that the exponents of Bjj * earned* that respect.
> 
> WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same.



This is not just style bashing this is an overt display of machismo, "my style is better than yours". why should anyone have to prove it to others?

If you are happy with what you do why would you have to 'step up and prove it', if it works it's works, if it doesn't, it doesn't. C'est la vie....... ou mort.

Discussion is one thing, downright disrespect another. Sneering at another style is surely against the rules here. 

The Gracies put their 'butts on the line' for commercial reasons, it's a business as is the UFC which was originally designed to showcase, market then cash in on their success. Props to them that they succeeded but that doesn't mean they are the epitome of the only style that 'works'. 
As for 'trial by video' that's a nonsense too. What does posting a video prove? Nothing frankly, it doesn't mean the person performing is good or bad it proves he's performing for the camera nothing else. 

BJJ is only as good as the person doing it, as is any other style.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> This is not just style bashing this is an overt display of machismo, "my style is better than yours". why should anyone have to prove it to others?



And once again Tez, you bring up an argument that never existed in the first place. 

RTK was comparing anti-grappling's claims of effectiveness against grappling to Bjj's claims of effectiveness against striking.

The difference is that Bjj has proven its effectiveness against striking arts. Anti-grappling on the other hand has not proven its effectiveness against grappling.

No one is bashing anything here, we are stating facts pure and simple.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> And once again Tez, you bring up an argument that never existed in the first place.
> 
> RTK was comparing anti-grappling's claims of effectiveness against grappling to Bjj's claims of effectiveness against striking.
> 
> The difference is that Bjj has proven its effectiveness against striking arts. Anti-grappling on the other hand has not proven its effectiveness against grappling.
> 
> No one is bashing anything here, we are stating facts pure and simple.




And once again you fail to understand what I've written. I'm not bringing up any argument, I'm saying you are style bashing which you are. Others are discussing, you are style bashing.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends on the grappler and striker, it's a bit hard to grapple when you are knocked unconscious.



At about an even level of training. Grapplers tend to win out.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> It has nothing to do with stroking an ego. It has everything to do with making claims like this;
> 
> 
> 
> *[/FONT][/I][/COLOR]With absolutely nothing to back it up.*


*

Just curious, have you actually watched the dvds you cited?*


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Just curious, have you actually watched the dvds you cited?



Yes. We discussed them in great detail here;

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/63-wing-chun/116176-some-more-thoughts-anti-grappling.html

Here's Gutierrez' preview for his DVD;


----------



## Argus

Answer me this: Why, Hanzou, do you always bring up the worst video examples of "anti-grappling"?

You can't argue that "anti-grappling" doesn't exist, and can't be effective. It's a strange term to use, but in any case, anytime you can thwart a grappler's game and come on out top with striking, you've successfully retained your game while thwarting his, and avoiding truly grappling in the process, have you not? You don't have to grapple a grappler. Now, I'm not saying that there is a fool proof method for this, or that it's even easy to do in the first place. You won't always be able to avoid grappling. But you can, and the more you train to that end, in a realistic way, with grapplers, the more likely you'll be able to.

I can't help but think you are spinning things with an agenda sometimes. While I applaud your crusade against unrealistic defenses against grapplers, you tend to come off as stating that grappling is the end all be all, and that it's a waste of time to counter grappling with anything other than grappling. If that's the case, we might as well just throw away all of these "useless arts" and depart upon a mass exodus to the one and only true martial art, BJJ.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Yes. We discussed them in great detail here;
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/63-wing-chun/116176-some-more-thoughts-anti-grappling.html
> 
> Here's Gutierrez' preview for his DVD;



Sorry I meant in their entirety rather than just snippets.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> And once again you fail to understand what I've written. I'm not bringing up any argument, I'm saying you are style bashing which you are. Others are discussing, you are style bashing.



And so is this post from you a personal attack?  Doesn't seem to address the topic at hand very much.  Rather, seems pretty focuses on an individual poster.  It certainly isn't the kind of post that will help keep the conversation from spiraling downward.  

Glass houses, as they say.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> At about an even level of training. Grapplers tend to win out.



And what evidence do you base that on? Let me guess, the early UFC, YouTube and the Gracie challenge.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> And so is this post from you a personal attack?  Doesn't seem to address the topic at hand very much.  Rather, seems pretty focuses on an individual poster.  It certainly isn't the kind of post that will help keep the conversation from spiraling downward.
> 
> Glass houses, as they say.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



so you are happy for the 'discussion' to continue with disrespect for other styles? 

That is not a personal attack on him, as you probably know but if you are back to having a go at me that's fine, I've broad shoulders but I don't see why sneering at other people's styles should go unremarked and that's what it is a remark.


----------



## Hanzou

Argus said:


> Answer me this: Why, Hanzou, do you always bring up the worst video examples of "anti-grappling"?



Saying that I bring up the worst examples implies that there are better examples. Feel free to post the better examples. I'm willing to check them out.



> You can't argue that "anti-grappling" doesn't exist, and can't be effective. It's a strange term to use, but in any case, anytime you can thwart a grappler's game and come on out top with striking, you've successfully retained your game while thwarting his, and avoiding truly grappling in the process, have you not? You don't have to grapple a grappler. Now, I'm not saying that there is a fool proof method for this, or that it's even easy to do in the first place. You won't always be able to avoid grappling. But you can, and the more you train to that end, in a realistic way, with grapplers, the more likely you'll be able to.



You have to grapple a grappler when you're in an inferior position, such as being pinned on the ground, or with the grappler being on top of you in mounted position. At that point, striking isn't a good idea, because the grappler's position is so dominant that their retaliation to your strikes are far more devastating, or if they're trained in a submission style they can break a limb or choke you. Which is why Tony said what he said about punching him in the groin while he's on top. You're not going to win that battle.

Now you can argue that your goal is to never end up in that position, but considering the takedown defenses I've seen out of anti-grappling, a grappler is going to get you in that position pretty easily. You may think its hard for someone to get on top of you and start raining blows down on you, but it really isn't, especially if they're trained. Transitions come swift and decisively when you're up against someone who is a novice at grappling.



> I can't help but think you are spinning things with an agenda sometimes. While I applaud your crusade against unrealistic defenses against grapplers, you tend to come off as stating that grappling is the end all be all, and that it's a waste of time to counter grappling with anything other than grappling. If that's the case, we might as well just throw away all of these "useless arts" and depart upon a mass exodus to the one and only true martial art, BJJ.



Well, there's a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling. I know some people on here don't take that seriously, but they really should. There's far more validity in that than in anything coming out of anti-grappling.


----------



## seasoned

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please, keep the conversation polite and *respectful.* 

Wes Yager
Senior Moderator_


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Sorry I meant in their entirety rather than just snippets.



Is there a specific reason why I should waste $30 and watch the entirety of these DVDs?

If the highlights are silly, why would the meat of the video be any different?


----------



## drop bear

Argus said:


> Answer me this: Why, Hanzou, do you always bring up the worst video examples of "anti-grappling"?
> 
> You can't argue that "anti-grappling" doesn't exist, and can't be effective. It's a strange term to use, but in any case, anytime you can thwart a grappler's game and come on out top with striking, you've successfully retained your game while thwarting his, and avoiding truly grappling in the process, have you not? You don't have to grapple a grappler. Now, I'm not saying that there is a fool proof method for this, or that it's even easy to do in the first place. You won't always be able to avoid grappling. But you can, and the more you train to that end, in a realistic way, with grapplers, the more likely you'll be able to.
> 
> I can't help but think you are spinning things with an agenda sometimes. While I applaud your crusade against unrealistic defenses against grapplers, you tend to come off as stating that grappling is the end all be all, and that it's a waste of time to counter grappling with anything other than grappling. If that's the case, we might as well just throw away all of these "useless arts" and depart upon a mass exodus to the one and only true martial art, BJJ.



OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> And what evidence do you base that on? Let me guess, the early UFC, YouTube and the Gracie challenge.



It is kind of what I do being a mma guy and all. That dynamic is pretty commonplace. But yes the striker grappler sports challenges would be the visable evidence. 

There was half an army study done somewhere as well where they tested it. Not sure if I can find it.

Or even looking at pure striking and how clinching is used to nullify the damage caused.

And you would have to have a reliable knock out shot otherwise. And I have seen very few people who can claim that.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY


that actually does seem like good defense.  Am I missing something?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY



If anti-grappling was like that, I would have no problem with it.

BTW, everyone who advocates elbows to the spine as legit takedown defense should watch that vid around the 10:40 mark. That Wing Chun instructor tells you exactly why that's a bad idea.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't something called "anti-grappling" be designed to defend against "Grapplers"?




Isn't the a English language a *****. So easy to misunderstand it. 




Hanzou said:


> The fact that anti-grappling isn't effective against grappling.


As I see it, anti-grappling seems to be the collective name for techniques to negate the advantage that a grappler might have on the ground by not going to the ground with him. If it was to be used against an acknowledged master like yourself it would become grappling, not anti-grappling.




Hanzou said:


> Both of which are no different than your typical MA knife defense you see in other systems.


So that excuses it? Hmm! But let's compare what is happening here with the way you dismissed Iain Abernethy's work. They are demonstrating techniques so it is not 'real'. Problem is it is not realistic either. Training that way and thinking you are obtaining skills to use against some one with a knife is delusional, but I suppose they recognised a hole in their training and plugged it. Right? Isn't it a shame they didn't bring in a highly skilled knife fighter to test them? 




Hanzou said:


> Again, are we to assume that "anti-grappling" isn't meant to defend against grapplers or people who grapple?


Yes, but again the nuance of the English language.   Self defence is mainly not fighting, something that many people don't understand. Anti-grappling is mainly not grappling, something *you* don't understand. It is no different to any other RBMA. All train to try not to go to the ground and all train to get up as fast as you can when you do. It just seems that WC has codified it as anti-grappling. 



Hanzou said:


> Right from the horse's mouth;
> 
> Victor Gutierrez - Wing Tsun DVD 09 - Anti-Grappling & Chi Gerk
> 
> Emin Boztepe - Combat Martial Arts DVD Vol 3 - Counter Grappling
> 
> Wing Chun Counter Grappling


Interesting that you would post a link that explains what they are trying to achieve and not listen to what they actually say ... which by the way is opposite what you claim it is saying?




Hanzou said:


> Master Cottrell in action;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you tell us how a system called "anti-grappling" (or counter grappling) isn't claiming to be an effective defense against grappling.


Like he demonstrates in the video you posted ... *anti-grappling isn't claiming to be an effective defence against grappling*. How's that? It is training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down if possible. Did you miss the but where he said if you haven't practised chi sau, pak sau, bong sau etc learn that first, or didn't you see the relevance of that sort of training in WC? And by the way, we do practise similar methods in my classes for exactly the reasons he mentions.

Again you have comprehensively demonstrated ignorance and really called into question your ability to comprehend the English language.


Edit. Thanks to the censors, ***** is a female dog. Sorry, I felt I needed to explain that in case you missed that too.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> And once again Tez, you bring up an argument that never existed in the first place.
> 
> RTK was comparing anti-grappling's claims of effectiveness against grappling to Bjj's claims of effectiveness against striking.
> 
> The difference is that Bjj has proven its effectiveness against striking arts. Anti-grappling on the other hand has not proven its effectiveness against grappling.
> 
> No one is bashing anything here, we are stating facts pure and simple.


:BSmeter:    It's off the scale again!


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It has nothing to do with stroking an ego. It has everything to do with making claims like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emin Boztepe takes on the grappler. In this DVD, he demonstrates effective techniques for countering anything a grappler might use. Bonus escrima techniques are again included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun&#8217;ers.
> 
> 
> He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure.
> 
> 
> This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With absolutely nothing to back it up.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it farcical when you post links to videos that are for sale, to demonstrate your point of view, without watching the videos first? I have some of Emin's videos because his is the most effective WC I have seen. In none of the videos I have is he demonstrating how to grapple on the ground with a grappler.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> And so is this post from you a personal attack?  Doesn't seem to address the topic at hand very much.  Rather, seems pretty focuses on an individual poster.  It certainly isn't the kind of post that will help keep the conversation from spiraling downward.
> 
> Glass houses, as they say.


It's called fighting fire with fire.  The other way didn't work. *Hanzou* just keeps on style bashing and no one seems to care. You and I had a discussion and I tried what you suggested. It not only didn't work, the bashing got worse. How did your discussion with *Hanzou* go? Not too successful from what I can see. 
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Don't you think it farcical when you post links to videos that are for sale, to demonstrate your point of view, without watching the videos first? I have some of Emin's videos because his is the most effective WC I have seen.



I think its farcical that you view stuff like this;





As effective.



> In none of the videos I have is he demonstrating how to grapple on the ground with a grappler.



Well of course not. He's demonstrating how to counter the grappler on the ground and standing up with Wing Chun strikes.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Saying that I bring up the worst examples implies that there are better examples. Feel free to post the better examples. I'm willing to check them out.
> 
> You have to grapple a grappler when you're in an inferior position, such as being pinned on the ground, or with the grappler being on top of you in mounted position. At that point, striking isn't a good idea, because the grappler's position is so dominant that their retaliation to your strikes are far more devastating, or if they're trained in a submission style they can break a limb or choke you. Which is why Tony said what he said about punching him in the groin while he's on top. You're not going to win that battle.
> 
> Now you can argue that your goal is to never end up in that position, but considering the takedown defenses I've seen out of anti-grappling, a grappler is going to get you in that position pretty easily. You may think its hard for someone to get on top of you and start raining blows down on you, but it really isn't, especially if they're trained. Transitions come swift and decisively when you're up against someone who is a novice at grappling.
> 
> Well, there's a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling. I know some people on here don't take that seriously, but they really should. There's far more validity in that than in anything coming out of anti-grappling.



Not true! You post the worst examples to denigrate the style. If you were posting the worst examples to show how it could be done more effectively we would be effusive with our thanks and we might all learn from each other's experience. Unfortunately that is not the way you do things. 

You are right in that there is a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling and that is because to compete in MMA you need to to be competitive. It's a sport after all. But now you are arguing against yourself because you are always asking why people from other styles don't go in the ring. You gave the answer. They would have to learn to grapple. All I and many others here want to do is try to avoid being taken down and have a rudimentary knowledge of how to get back up if we do. I don't have to learn to grapple on the ground.




Hanzou said:


> Is there a specific reason why I should waste $30 and watch the entirety of these DVDs?
> 
> If the highlights are silly, why would the meat of the video be any different?


Yes. You might learn something. Even if from your perspective parts are not sound there must be other parts that are good. I have many DVDs that I pick bits out of to improve my skills. Even in this one, that you claim is silly, the focus is on getting away, not grappling.



Hanzou said:


> If anti-grappling was like that, I would have no problem with it.
> 
> BTW, everyone who advocates elbows to the spine as legit takedown defense should watch that vid around the 10:40 mark. That Wing Chun instructor tells you exactly why that's a bad idea.


So now you acknowledge that good technique might actually work against a grappler. Cool, that's real progress!


----------



## Tez3

Perhaps we could have a thread, a sticky even, of all the videos showing the worse of all the styles. There's some for every style, there's even some for styles that don't actually exist or are made up. 
The fact that some numpty puts a video on You Tube showing how 'good' they are at whatever is not proof the style itself is at fault. Goodness knows there's enough videos out there of really bad attempts at perfectly sound techniques. Relying on the martial arts equivalents of selfies as proof of the efficacy or otherwise of a style is just plain silly. Asking for videos of people sparring, grappling, 'anti-grappling is also pointless. I could post a video up of myself doing Capoeira, I understand all the principles of it, I understand the history, why's and wherefores but I would perform it very badly indeed (though of course I'd say I was the best in the world lol)  so would watching me doing it that badly be proof that Capoeira is ludicrously clumsy and pointless?  I rather think it would be proof only of the fact I can't do it (and tell lies), nothing else.


----------



## Argus

I have to say, I do agree with Hanzou on his take of the videos being posted. I just don't agree with the assumption/generalization that this kind of stuff is the only "grappling defense" that WC and other TMA practitioners practice. I've already posted a few good examples in the Wing Chun thread, and I've also seen good stuff from a few instructors who don't have a Youtube presence. There's a lot of selection bias going on here.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*This is a really good discussion folks*.  Let's just keep everything respectful for all our members and their styles.  No need to take a shot at anyone even if you do not like what they say or how a system does things.  Just keep it respectful!  We have had one moderator warning along this line so let's all be on our best behavior.  Thanks.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*It is well known I am not a fan* of what is mostly out there categorized as anti-grappling.(yet I like and respect Wing Chun and have witnessed some good practitioner's dismantle people)  Why Hanzou, Drop Bear, Steve or I think the one Wing Chun video above posted by Drop Bear works is because he is teaching a sprawl and you can see him demonstrate it fully in a couple of variations as well as demonstrating it and popping back up and staying on his feet.  A very good idea for Wing Chun practitioners or anyone interested in self defense on the street.  Now, I am not saying what he is doing is great or fantastic or revolutionary (I do not like the scarecrow thing) but what he is showing will work.  The sprawl is effective against a single or double leg takedown.  *Really effective *and should be in everyone's skill set to stop a shoot!  That is a good base for him and his students to explore and hopefully they can put it into practice against skilled grapplers and see positive results.  Now I am also confident that Steve, Drop Bear, Myself, Hanzou, Tez3, K-Man, etc. would also agree that if you are taken down you can attempt to kick at the person taking you down.  MMA does it with the up kick and while it definitely is not ideal it can give someone trying to close and get to a position of dominance on top a certain some thing to worry about.  Wing Chun exponents are looking at kicking in a cycle like manner to keep a grappler off them.  Certainly not an up kick and definitely lower down the line than just utilizing good body positioning but.... it could work in the right circumstance.  

Maybe we can find some things to agree on? :idunno:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Not true! You post the worst examples to denigrate the style. If you were posting the worst examples to show how it could be done more effectively we would be effusive with our thanks and we might all learn from each other's experience. Unfortunately that is not the way you do things.



Where have I ever done that? 



> You are right in that there is a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling and that is because to compete in MMA you need to to be competitive. It's a sport after all. But now you are arguing against yourself because you are always asking why people from other styles don't go in the ring. You gave the answer. They would have to learn to grapple. All I and many others here want to do is try to avoid being taken down and have a rudimentary knowledge of how to get back up if we do. I don't have to learn to grapple on the ground.



The proper answer is that MMA practitioners quickly learned that the best way to beat grapplers was to learn to grapple themselves. This is what led to the fading of Bjj as the dominant fighting style in MMA. 

This anti-grappling stuff has been tried before, and it failed miserably. What we have here are people who simply don't want to accept reality, and honestly believe that a straight punch to the nuts while on your back will keep that big burly wrestler from smacking their head into the concrete. It irresponsible and dangerous to lead people in such a way.

What makes this all the more silly is that there are very simple ways to counter superior grappling positions. You don't need to come up with convoluted and faulty solutions when better solutions are readily available.  For example, the Upa for the mount, and the Bridging Sweep for side control. These movements are simple, safe, and effective.



> Yes. You might learn something. Even if from your perspective parts are not sound there must be other parts that are good. I have many DVDs that I pick bits out of to improve my skills. Even in this one, that you claim is silly, the focus is on getting away, not grappling.



If there are sound parts to anti-grappling, I have yet to see them.



> So now you acknowledge that good technique might actually work against a grappler. Cool, that's real progress!



Where did I ever say different?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> honestly believe that a straight punch to the nuts while on your back will keep that big burly wrestler from smacking their head into the concrete.



Yes, like Tony Dismukes before mentioned having people try that on him I am in total agreement. Tony knows it will fail and so does any good grappler.  If someone is mounted on you and you try to strike them in the groin it will not work.  It is a bad, idea and will end badly!  It is much better to learn the very simple to perform "Bump and Roll" and gain better position to work from.  However, *I am confident that no one on our board feels a strike to the groin when someone is mounted on you is a good idea.*


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> However, *I am confident that no one on our board feels a strike to the groin when someone is mounted on you is a good idea.*



Check out the OP.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*I think if we are all in a room having a beer we would all get along very well! * Even if we all have a few things we do different than the other guy. 

All of us have more in common with each other than we do most other people.  That includes if you practice for sport, street, fitness or whatever.


----------



## Hanzou

Argus said:


> I have to say, I do agree with Hanzou on his take of the videos being posted. I just don't agree with the assumption/generalization that this kind of stuff is the only "grappling defense" that WC and other TMA practitioners practice.



Where/When was that argument ever made?



> I've already posted a few good examples in the Wing Chun thread, and I've also seen good stuff from a few instructors who don't have a Youtube presence. There's a lot of selection bias going on here.



As I've stated before, if you examples of more technically sound examples of anti-grappling, feel free to post them.

Just FYI: Drop Bear's example isn't anti-grappling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Brian R. VanCise said:


> All of us have more in common with each other than we do most other people.  That includes if you practice for sport, street, fitness or whatever.



Agree! After all, we are all interested in MA.

When Hanzon talks about "anti-grappling", he is looking at this issue from a grappler point of view. IMO, when we talk about striking vs. grappling, we should not have any style boundary. 

The 

- striking art is more than just the WC system. It can be long fist, Baji, Taiji, boxing, MT, Karate, TKD, ... . 
- grappling art is more than just the BJJ system, it can be Shuai-Chiao, wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Sumo, Aikido, ... 

IMO, since most grapplers don't mind to "cross train" the striking art, they also don't mind to test their grappling skill against strikers. If all strikers also don't mind to "cross train" the grappling art, and also are willing to test their striking skill against grapplers, this ridicules term "anti-grappling" will never even be invented.

If a wrestler doesn't mind to learn boxing, why should a boxer refuse to learn wrestling? No matter you are a striker, or you are a grappler, you should always test your skill against people from the other side of the fence. 

Just image that if you are a 

- striker and no grappler can take you down,
- grappler and no strikers can knock you down,

that kind of fun even money cannot buy it. Is that our common goal and we all want to achieve?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:
			
		

> Yeah, but not defined nor refined as what is BJJ. There is grappling in Muay Thai, Shotokan, Boxing, and many other 'striking' arts as well. Again not defined the same as Judo, BJJ, GJJ, Catch, Sambo, etc.



To me, good grappling is good grappling. Some arts cover a larger subset of the whole than others, but if it's good, it's good.The grappling I've learned from Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali, etc, has helped inform my BJJ grappling.



			
				K-man said:
			
		

> With respect, what you are quoting is being taken out of context. What is written here is an example of a situation, not a specific defence against the mount. Secondly, if I am reading it correctly, it specifically excludes a trained grappler by saying that on the street there is a high probability that the groin will be exposed. Obviously attacking the groin is not always an option and if it is available it is not necessarily the best option, but it is a legitimate target in RBSD.



Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.

1) Attacking the groin when mounted is a bad tactic even against a untrained grappler.
2) I don't see anything explicitly or implicitly excluding a trained grappler from the situation.
3) He doesn't say the groin will always be an available target, but the fact that he says the groin "is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position" suggests that he thinks it this is a high-percentage tactic.
4) I certainly agree that the groin is a legitimate target in a RBSD situation. Just not from the bottom of the mount.



			
				RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> (Responding to drop bear's claim that grapplers have an edge over strikers at equal levels of training) And what evidence do you base that on? Let me guess, the early UFC, YouTube and the Gracie challenge.



I don't know about drop bear, but for me it's those plus my observations from 33 years in a variety of striking, grappling, and weapons arts. Something I discovered long before I ever even heard of BJJ was that it's easier to get the clinch than it is to prevent it. 

Of course, I don't have much interest in the question of whether "grapplers" have an advantage over "strikers" or vice versa, because I see no reason to limit yourself to one modality. Grappling is more effective when you know how to strike. Striking is more effective when you know how to grapple.



			
				drop bear said:
			
		

> OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY



Thank you! See, everyone, WC guys can do good anti-grappling. Interesting how it begins with actually understanding how grappling works.



			
				K-man said:
			
		

> Like he demonstrates in the video you posted ... *anti-grappling isn't claiming to be an effective defence against grappling*. How's that? It is training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down if possible.



Wouldn't training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down be an essential element of any effective defense against grappling?

I don't think anyone is claiming that in order to fight a grappler you have to become an expert at rolling around on the ground applying triangle chokes or the like.  You just want to have some skill at preventing takedowns, escaping the most common bad positions on the ground if you do get taken down, and getting back to your feet safely. Unless you plan on competing in MMA, you probably don't even have to learn any submission defense.

The problem comes when folks put out instruction claiming to teach those skills which is ineffective because they have never bothered to test their solutions with actual grapplers. This isn't a knock against (for example) Wing Chun. I'm sure there are plenty of Wing Chun practitioners who have put in the time working with actual grapplers to know what they are doing. I'm not really plugged in to the WC community, but off-hand Dominick Izzo and Jin Young come to mind. I'm sure if I was involved with the WC community I would know more names of WC practitioners who can demonstrate their anti-grappling strategies without spouting nonsense.

I will agree with Hanzou that the examples he has posted are pretty embarrassing for the individuals involved.



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Just FYI: Drop Bear's example isn't anti-grappling.



Sure it is. It's just technically sound anti-grappling as opposed to some of the silly stuff in the other videos you posted. If you define anti-grappling as only the silly stuff that doesn't work, then of course no one will be able to post examples of effective anti-grappling.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> To me, good grappling is good grappling. Some arts cover a larger subset of the whole than others, but if it's good, it's good.The grappling I've learned from Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali, etc, has helped inform my BJJ grappling.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.
> 
> 1) Attacking the groin when mounted is a bad tactic even against a untrained grappler.
> 2) I don't see anything explicitly or implicitly excluding a trained grappler from the situation.
> 3) He doesn't say the groin will always be an available target, but the fact that he says the groin "is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position" suggests that he thinks it this is a high-percentage tactic.
> 4) I certainly agree that the groin is a legitimate target in a RBSD situation. Just not from the bottom of the mount.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about drop bear, but for me it's those plus my observations from 33 years in a variety of striking, grappling, and weapons arts. Something I discovered long before I ever even heard of BJJ was that it's easier to get the clinch than it is to prevent it.
> 
> Of course, I don't have much interest in the question of whether "grapplers" have an advantage over "strikers" or vice versa, because I see no reason to limit yourself to one modality. Grappling is more effective when you know how to strike. Striking is more effective when you know how to grapple.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! See, everyone, WC guys can do good anti-grappling. Interesting how it begins with actually understanding how grappling works.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down be an essential element of any effective defense against grappling?
> 
> I don't think anyone is claiming that in order to fight a grappler you have to become an expert at rolling around on the ground applying triangle chokes or the like.  You just want to have some skill at preventing takedowns, escaping the most common bad positions on the ground if you do get taken down, and getting back to your feet safely. Unless you plan on competing in MMA, you probably don't even have to learn any submission defense.
> 
> The problem comes when folks put out instruction claiming to teach those skills which is ineffective because they have never bothered to test their solutions with actual grapplers. This isn't a knock against (for example) Wing Chun. I'm sure there are plenty of Wing Chun practitioners who have put in the time working with actual grapplers to know what they are doing. I'm not really plugged in to the WC community, but off-hand Dominick Izzo and Jin Young come to mind. I'm sure if I was involved with the WC community I would know more names of WC practitioners who can demonstrate their anti-grappling strategies without spouting nonsense.
> 
> I will agree with Hanzou that the examples he has posted are pretty embarrassing for the individuals involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. It's just technically sound anti-grappling as opposed to some of the silly stuff in the other videos you posted. If you define anti-grappling as only the silly stuff that doesn't work, then of course no one will be able to post examples of effective anti-grappling.


I wish I could like this post more than once.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Brian R. VanCise said:


> However, *I am confident that no one on our board feels a strike to the groin when someone is mounted on you is a good idea.*





Hanzou said:


> Check out the OP.



Well here it is ... what part of it do you think pertains to groin strike?



> As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until Hanzou threw it in to take a low shot at WC.
> 
> 
> So we are all on the same page, here is the reference Hanzou used to put it down.
> 
> 
> Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA
> 
> 
> When I read the Hanzou's posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.
> 
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.
> 
> 
> So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc. With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.
> 
> 
> As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.
> 
> 
> Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.
> 
> 
> I look forward to some interesting discussion.


 I never mentioned groin strike!


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Where/When was that argument ever made?
> 
> 
> 
> As I've stated before, if you examples of more technically sound examples of anti-grappling, feel free to post them.
> 
> Just FYI: Drop Bear's example isn't anti-grappling.



It depends how semantic you want to get with the concept. And I am pretty much against arguing a term if the idea is there.. There are shades of grey with this.

So if someone is grappling with an emphasis on stand up and wants to call it anti grappling I am happier with that than someone doing something bloody stupid and calling it bjj.

Yes takedown defence is grappling.

The comment that stood out for me was in the anti grapple link I posted. Or grapple link. I don't care which was that he was not doing anything revolutionary.

That is the key. You are not going to revolutionise grappling unless you are a top level grappler. 

It is the hardest and most ineffective way to gain a skill. And yet is one of the most commonly tried. People come to a new concept with their old baggage.

I do karate why cant I use karate blocks in boxing? I do wing chun why can't I just chain punch on the ground? I do mma why cant i just double leg everybody in judo?

Everybody going into a new style faces this dilemma. What they know feels more natural and gives quicker gratification than what they don't know. And if every body is learning the same thing how do they get the sneaky edge.

Instead of just being a bit humble and putting in the hard work to learn the skill.

Hence anti grappling at its spazzyest.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! After all, we are all interested in MA.
> 
> When Hanzon talks about "anti-grappling", he is looking at this issue from a grappler point of view. IMO, when we talk about striking vs. grappling, we should not have any style boundary.
> 
> The
> 
> - striking art is more than just the WC system. It can be long fist, Baji, Taiji, boxing, MT, Karate, TKD, ... .
> - grappling art is more than just the BJJ system, it can be Shuai-Chiao, wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Sumo, Aikido, ...
> 
> IMO, since most grapplers don't mind to "cross train" the striking art, they also don't mind to test their grappling skill against strikers. If all strikers also don't mind to "cross train" the grappling art, and also are willing to test their striking skill against grapplers, this ridicules term "anti-grappling" will never even be invented.
> 
> If a wrestler doesn't mind to learn boxing, why should a boxer refuse to learn wrestling? No matter you are a striker, or you are a grappler, you should always test your skill against people from the other side of the fence.
> 
> Just image that if you are a
> 
> - striker and no grappler can take you down,
> - grappler and no strikers can knock you down,
> 
> that kind of fun even money cannot buy it. Is that our common goal and we all want to achieve?



Yeas and no. Some people just love the system they do. We have boxers who won't grapple. The reason being personal choice.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Well here it is ... what part of it do you think pertains to groin strike?
> 
> I never mentioned groin strike!



I was merely pointing out that you think highly of anti-grappling despite its techniques being highly flawed. I.e. groin punches to counter the mount.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I was merely pointing out that you think highly of anti-grappling despite its techniques being highly flawed. I.e. groin punches to counter the mount.


I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have *never* advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have *never* advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.



OK so now I am going to get semantic. But that is very much grappling as well. You are describing scrambles basically.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwYTR4nAWs


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have *never* advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.



Right.  Lest anyone think otherwise, kman does not train in wc and so is not an authority on wc anti grappling.  He's just a fan. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have *never* advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.




So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> OK so now I am going to get semantic. But that is very much grappling as well. You are describing scrambles basically.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwYTR4nAWs


Mate, I wish I was that agile! :lfao:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Right.  Lest anyone think otherwise, kman does not train in wc and so is not an authority on wc anti grappling.  He's just a fan.


:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?


I have no opinion as I have never seen it practised. I do not regard YouTube as being anything more than what someone else bothered to put on line. I do think the concept of anti-grappling is valid as obviously do almost every other style of martial art that does not advocate fighting on the ground. As to whether it is an appropriate name ... ? 

There is no such thing as poor technical concept. (Your English letting you down again.  ) There are only techniques that are appropriate for the situation or not. Poor choice of technique is one thing, using poor technique is another. I have taken many techniques from other styles for myself. The video that *Drop Bear *posted that you claimed wasn't anti-grappling has a shoot that I teach and teach how to counter. I like some of chinaboxer's techniques and others don't work for me at all. But, I don't label the things I don't like as 'silly' or 'fraudulent'. They might work for others, who knows? 

As I said before, if you were to take a video that you thought had poor technique or poor choice of technique, pointed out why it was wrong, rather than just dissing it, and offering an alternative that you thought might be more effective, then the tone of the place would go up markedly. That is what I did with your two 'Krav' videos that were not sound technique. Even in your post above you couldn't resist adding your opinion to the question.

Let's look at your question with fresh eyes.

"So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?

becomes ...

"K-man, I have difficulty accepting that some of the anti-grappling techniques I have seen would work in practice, especially against an opponent with a grappling background. What is your opinion of anti-grappling?"

to which I would have replied ...

"Good point Hanzou." I really don't know as I don't study WC and my grappling skills are very basic, hopefully enough to keep me out of trouble.    But can you give me an example of what you feel they could do better?"

and you might have said ...

"Well for starters I saw one video where the guy was advocating a strike to the groin to escape the mount. From my experience it will not work because the groin is really not accessible and if you take your arms away from protecting your face, you will get hit. Much better you should shift your foot up beside his leg to prevent him posting, lift your hips quickly to throw him forward, grab an arm and roll. You will probably end up in his guard in which case there are several easy escapes I can show you. In the meantime I have searched YouTube and found what I would consider a good example of what I was describing."

to which I would have responded ...

"Thank you Hanzou. That was really useful information. I'll give it a shot next night we train."

And I would have given you a +ve rep.


----------



## Steve

Wait.  What???!!!   After all of this you are seriously suggesting you have no opinion???  Come on.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Wait.  What???!!!   After all of this you are seriously suggesting you have no opinion???  Come on.


On this topic, yes!


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> On this topic, yes!



What was that original post then?


----------



## K-man

Here is the OP.



K-man said:


> As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until *Hanzou* threw it in to take a low shot at WC.
> 
> So we are all on the same page, here is the reference *Hanzou* used to put it down.
> 
> Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA
> 
> When I read the *Hanzou*'s posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.
> 
> So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc.  With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.
> 
> As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.
> 
> Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.
> 
> I look forward to some interesting discussion.
> :asian:





drop bear said:


> What was that original post then?


As I said I hadn't even heard the term before *Hanzou* wrote about it. I didn't want the other thread wrecked so I started a new one to discuss it. As I said, I believe, WC should be commended for developing strategies to use against grapplers, not denigrated. That is nothing to do with an opinion on whether what they have produced is good or bad. I have never watched a video of anti-grappling except what has been posted here and I have never seen it first hand. How could I have an educated opinion? I know there is someone around here who has strong opinions about things of which he has no knowledge but that is not me.
:asian:


----------



## Tez3

When someone is in mount on you, a suitable groin strike could be a bite............................................:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It has nothing to do with stroking an ego. It has everything to do with making claims like this;
> 
> 
> 
> *[/FONT][/I][/COLOR]With absolutely nothing to back it up.*


*

You can say anything you want about anti grappling but at least they have 'stepped up' and posted videos of themselves to prove their claims (however successfully), which is more than I can say about you.*


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Or even looking at pure striking and how clinching is used to nullify the damage caused.



A clinch is much more useful in a sporting competition, where you know you will not get head butted than in self defense.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> You can say anything you want about anti grappling but at least they have 'stepped up' and posted videos of themselves to prove their claims (however successfully), which is more than I can say about you.



Now there's a point. Well said that man!
We've heard constantly over several threads now how this doesn't work, that doesn't work yet not one video from the person accusing these styles and stylists. 'Post and prove it' has been the cry a few times, perhaps it's time we shouted it back. Post a video of yourself 'pressure testing' what you say works.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Brian R. VanCise said:


> l!  We have had one moderator warning along this line so let's all be on our best behavior.



It wouldn't be a real thread if it didn't have at least one.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tez3 said:


> Now there's a point. Well said that man!
> We've heard constantly over several threads now how this doesn't work, that doesn't work yet not one video from the person accusing these styles and stylists. 'Post and prove it' has been the cry a few times, perhaps it's time we shouted it back. Post a video of yourself 'pressure testing' what you say works.



I and others have asked them to post videos of themselves before.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> You can say anything you want about anti grappling but at least they have 'stepped up' and posted videos of themselves to prove their claims (however successfully), which is more than I can say about you.



Posting videos of poor technique and baseless claims is not "stepping up".


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Now there's a point. Well said that man!
> We've heard constantly over several threads now how this doesn't work, that doesn't work yet not one video from the person accusing these styles and stylists. 'Post and prove it' has been the cry a few times, perhaps it's time we shouted it back. Post a video of yourself 'pressure testing' what you say works.



That's quite a false equivalence you got there.

The difference is that my claims don't go against common held beliefs. Anti-grappling claims that you can defeat any grappler with Wing Chun strikes. That claim flies against common held beliefs, so you need to prove the claim.

I've given critiques of numerous videos of anti-grappling, showcasing my knowledge of grappling in general. If you have an issue with those critiques, feel free to correct me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> BTW, everyone who advocates elbows to the spine as legit takedown defense should watch that vid around the 10:40 mark. That Wing Chun instructor tells you exactly why that's a bad idea.



You are not going to get a good downward elbow with any decent amount of power from that position (with both feet side by side and the opponents body that high up on yours). You would need to step one leg back and push his head down, and then do the elbow.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> That's quite a false equivalence you got there.



:lfao: that's just bollocks, post up a video of yourself showing where WC's 'anti grappling' is going wrong. Then find a new catch phrase that one is worn thin. :lfao:


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Posting videos of poor technique and baseless claims is not "stepping up".



It is still more than you have provided. Let's see how your technique is and how much base your claims have before you judge others.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> You are not going to get a good downward elbow with any decent amount of power from that position (with both feet side by side and the opponents body that high up on yours). You would need to step one leg back and push his head down, and then do the elbow.



How are you going to have enough force to push his head down when he has your shoulder elevated passed your neck?

Not to mention that as soon as he senses your shift in weight, he's taking you down.

The one-step self defense stuff doesn't work. Let it go and learn to sprawl.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> :lfao: that's just bollocks, post up a video of yourself showing where WC's 'anti grappling' is going wrong. Then find a new catch phrase that one is worn thin. :lfao:



Do I really need to post a video of why a groin grab from the bottom of mount is a stupid idea, or why this;







Isn't a good takedown defense?

It's like saying I need to post a video to prove that the Earth is round.

Howabout you tell us some *good* things about anti-grappling that we're somehow missing.


----------



## yak sao

I've been sitting back watching the sparks fly on this thread but have finally decided to weigh in.

I'm a Wing Tsun guy...have been for 20 years now. I trained with Emin Boztepe for 10 of those years and have seen his anti grappling taught first hand. I've seen him personally demonstrate it on countless people...yes even BJJ people (*GASP).
Let's leave him aside though, he's a big boy and can stand up for himself. Let's talk about my hands on experience.

I have tried anti grappling concepts numerous times against all types of grapplers, ranging from high school wrestlers, to catch wrestlers to judoka to BJJ people. I've also applied it to good old corn fed country boys who have no real grappling experience other than being strong as a freakin ox and willing to get down and dirty and plant your face in the dirt.
And guess what?... it works. Is it a magic bullet that gets you out without any effort? No. It is taking the form of MA that I chose to train in and putting in long hard hours of developing my skills then applying these skills against non compliant training partners.

Grapplers love what they do, I get it. So do I. I don't bash what they do, in fact I appreciate their skill and am always thankful when one of them drops by to allow me the privilege to train with them. We don't thump our chests and call what the other does BS...we learn from each other and move on.
It's easy to be a forum/keyboard warrior. If the anti grappling you see is bogus in your mind, find your local "anti grappler" and put it to the test....the 2 of you just may learn something together.


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> I've been sitting back watching the sparks fly on this thread but have finally decided to weigh in.
> 
> I'm a Wing Tsun guy...have been for 20 years now. I trained with Emin Boztepe for 10 of those years and have seen his anti grappling taught first hand. I've seen him personally demonstrate it on countless people...yes even BJJ people (*GASP).
> Let's leave him aside though, he's a big boy and can stand up for himself. Let's talk about my hands on experience.
> 
> I have tried anti grappling concepts numerous times against all types of grapplers, ranging from high school wrestlers, to catch wrestlers to judoka to BJJ people. I've also applied it to good old corn fed country boys who have no real grappling experience other than being strong as a freakin ox and willing to get down and dirty and plant your face in the dirt.
> And guess what?... it works. Is it a magic bullet that gets you out without any effort? No. It is taking the form of MA that I chose to train in and putting in long hard hours of developing my skills then applying these skills against non compliant training partners.
> 
> Grapplers love what they do, I get it. So do I. I don't bash what they do, in fact I appreciate their skill and am always thankful when one of them drops by to allow me the privilege to train with them. We don't thump our chests and call what the other does BS...we learn from each other and move on.
> It's easy to be a forum/keyboard warrior. If the anti grappling you see is bogus in your mind, find your local "anti grappler" and put it to the test....the 2 of you just may learn something together.



So Yak, would you say that the videos provided in this thread, and the thread in the WC forum are a good and fair representation of Wing Tsun anti-grappling?


----------



## yak sao

Oh and one other thing....the "anti-grappling" term.
"Anti" means to fight against. to oppose. to offer a resistance.

Nowhere in that term is it implied that WC is immune to grappling. It instead tells you our approach to dealing with said grappler. We oppose them. We use our WC skills to fight against what they are trying to accomplish.

The term could have been "counter grappling" or "grappling defense", but the term anti grappling fits more with a WC fighter's mindset, which is one of always going forward, taking the fight to our opponent. Not hanging back and waiting to see what they do so we can respond.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> That's quite a false equivalence you got there.
> 
> The difference is that my claims don't go against common held beliefs. Anti-grappling claims that you can defeat any grappler with Wing Chun strikes. That claim flies against common held beliefs, so you need to prove the claim.
> 
> I've given critiques of numerous videos of anti-grappling, showcasing my knowledge of grappling in general. If you have an issue with those critiques, feel free to correct me.



Do you actually read my words or do they somehow float across your eyes and turn into something else. I haven't mentioned anti grappling, I haven't said anything about any beliefs common or not, I have made no claim at all about anything on this thread but what I have done is ask you to post up videos of you demonstrating why anti grappling doesn't work. what you have posted up is others not you, not too much to ask is it that you, personally show us what you mean? 

I'm not claiming that anti grappling works as you seem to think so I have no need to prove any claim at all, I'm asking for a video of you. You ask for people to post up videos of themselves, why shouldn't we ask for one at least of you? 

You seem to think I have a dog in this argument, I don't, I don't know whether anti grappling works or not, I haven't said it does or doesn't which if you had actually read my posts you would understand. I'm quite happy to be convinced either way but rather than posting silly gifs why not post a video of you?  Go on convince me :lfao:

Yak sao, very good, considered thoughtful post, it was good reading.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> So Yak, would you say that the videos provided in this thread, and the thread in the WC forum are a good and fair representation of Wing Tsun anti-grappling?



The one of EB that you have playing in a loop vs. the shoot in is not what I would chose to do against someone coming in on me. We are taught, in fact Emin taught me this, to not give the knee to someone who is moving forward because you are giving them a handle.
I think this particular video was simply a demo...not the best choice in my opinion, but then you have never been kicked by Emin and felt the power in his technique, or tried to uproot him as he stands effortlessly on one leg and fends you off like you're a little kid...I have.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> Do you actually read my words


It has become apparent to me in the short time I have been here that he/she does not.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> How are you going to have enough force to push his head down when he has your shoulder elevated passed your neck?



You use your hips and drop your body weight and you do it before he gets in that far.



Hanzou said:


> Not to mention that as soon as he senses your shift in weight, he's taking you down.



Not if you drop him first.



Hanzou said:


> The one-step self defense stuff doesn't work. Let it go and learn to sprawl.



And you know that from your vast knowledge of one step self defense do you?


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> The one of EB that you have playing in a loop vs. the shoot in is not what I would chose to do against someone coming in on me. We are taught, in fact Emin taught me this, to not give the knee to someone who is moving forward because you are giving them a handle.



Well not the gif, but the numerous videos that have been posted. Here's a repost;
























> I think this particular video was simply a demo...not the best choice in my opinion, but then you have never been kicked by Emin and felt the power in his technique, or tried to uproot him as he stands effortlessly on one leg and fends you off like you're a little kid...



Nope, can't say that I have. However, I do have my doubts that you can stop a single leg takedown in that fashion.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> Nope, can't say that I have. However, I do have my doubts that you can stop a single leg takedown in that fashion.




And some good old fashioned skepticism is fine. What I think people are perceiving from you though is cynicism. 

What's the saying? "A cynic knows that price of everything and the value of nothing".

I'm not a student of those guys so I can't speak for them.  I have had the opportunity to train some with sifu Yannis about 16 years ago at one of Emin's fighter camps, him I can speak for. He's one tough SOB, as is Emin. Their stuff works.

I will give you this. WC does not demo well. it comes across rather weak and even kind of silly looking. And with anything, there is both good and bad and everything in between. Don't rely on what you see on youtube to make an informed decision about WC.
You really need to find someone who is decent at their craft and give it a go.
You may be quite surprised at what you find.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> You can say anything you want about anti grappling but at least they have 'stepped up' and posted videos of themselves to prove their claims (however successfully), which is more than I can say about you.


The videos referenced are commercially made and sold DVDs.  The goal for these videos is profit. 

I've said before, the bar for teachers and school owners SHOULD be much higher than for non-teachers and non-school owners.  Like myself, Hanzou is not a school owner or a teacher.  It would serve little purpose, if any, for him to post videos of himself in the context of a thread discussing concerns regarding some specific videos and claims by well established WC guys on the topic of anti-grappling. 

My impression is that the guys who posted these videos, and who are trying to sell these DVDs on anti-grappling are well established, well known WC instructors.  People, clearly, take their word for it if they say technique is sound.  If the technique is NOT sound, can't we all agree that's a bad thing?  

The conversation gets so emotional.  I get that to an extent.  But, it all really boils down to the specific techniques shared.  And if these are on the "highlight reel" trying to sell the DVDs, we can construe that the rest of the DVD contains the same.  

Once again, the issue isn't the philosophy and the theory.  It's in the specific application demonstrated in the videos.  As long as we remain theoretical and abstract, there's room for everyone to get emotional.  But I believe that if we get specific, we can actually make some progress.  

For example, I would characterize the videos posted in another thread to be concerning, for reasons I outlined in that thread.  The video posted by Drop Bear is what I would call solid "anti-grappling."  While I don't know if it's good WC, I can say that it appears to be somewhat legit technique for defending the take down and remaining on your feet when a competent wrestler clinches with you.  

If there's one thing I've learned recently, it's that you CMA guys think fundamentally differently than I.  We just flat out don't see things the same way.  This is a good thing, IMO.  But it's only made it more clear to me that I cannot replicate your thought processes on my own, and vice versa.  A bunch of CMA'ists just flat out cannot sit around and think like grapplers, developing "anti-grappling" in a vacuum. 

The call to action on the part of the grappling contingent here has been  pretty consistent, simply build the technique with grapplers.  That  doesn't mean train BJJ (although not a bad idea, IMO).  It doesn't mean  borrow techniques from folk wrestling, sambo, CaCC wrestling, Judo or  BJJ (although again, could be okay if done wisely).  It DOES mean  working out the techniques outside of the clinical laboratory of like  minded MA'ists.   The video Drop Bear posted was a technique developed in cooperation with competent grappling.  The techniques being defended were applied realistically and the grapplers reactions were consistent with what a grappler might actually do.   And so, if trained well, there is a good chance that the technique will help and not hurt.  

I can't say the same for many of the techniques shown in the various "anti-grappling" threads.  What I've seen are techniques that will likely just make your situation worse and not better.  It's not my ego saying that.  It's actual grappling experience, seeing in these techniques things that would actually help me and hurt you.


----------



## Steve

yak sao said:


> And some good old fashioned skepticism is fine. What I think people are perceiving from you though is cynicism.
> 
> What's the saying? "A cynic knows that price of everything and the value of nothing".
> 
> I'm not a student of those guys so I can't speak for them.  I have had the opportunity to train some with sifu Yannis about 16 years ago at one of Emin's fighter camps, him I can speak for. He's one tough SOB, as is Emin. Their stuff works.
> 
> I will give you this. WC does not demo well. it comes across rather weak and even kind of silly looking. And with anything, there is both good and bad and everything in between. Don't rely on what you see on youtube to make an informed decision about WC.
> You really need to find someone who is decent at their craft and give it a go.
> You may be quite surprised at what you find.


Were egos left off the mats, this could be REALLY fun and informative.  Based upon what I've seen around here recently, ego is an issue on all sides of the debate.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> You use your hips and drop your body weight and you do it before he gets in that far.
> 
> Not if you drop him first.
> 
> And you know that from your vast knowledge of one step self defense do you?


Something just occurred to me.  Isn't self defense training a worst case scenario type thing?  I just read this exchange and it seemed as though the two roles were reversed.  I would expect the RBSD guy to be asking the what ifs and the non-self defense guy answering.

RTKDCMB: what if you couldn't drop your hips because the shot was too deep?  What if you didn't "drop him?"  What if you're now on your back and his hips are in front of yours (ie, you are bottom under mount), the mount is very high, limiting use of your arms and putting a tremendous amount of pressure directly on your diaphragm making it difficult to breathe, and he is using his forearm and elbow to strike your face?


----------



## yak sao

Steve said:


> Were egos left off the mats, this could be REALLY fun and informative.  Based upon what I've seen around here recently, ego is an issue on all sides of the debate.



It's been said that sports do not build character, they reveal it. How much more true is that of MA?


----------



## yak sao

Steve said:


> If there's one thing I've learned recently, it's that you CMA guys think fundamentally differently than I.  We just flat out don't see things the same way.  This is a good thing, IMO.  But it's only made it more clear to me that I cannot replicate your thought processes on my own, and vice versa.  A bunch of CMA'ists just flat out cannot sit around and think like grapplers, developing "anti-grappling" in a vacuum.



We are a different breed, that's for sure. CMAs tend to attract a lot of people who want to train in the fancy, fantasized version of MA, but we're not all like that.
Emin is Turk. He grew up learning Turkish wrestling. His sifu, K Kernspecht had a wrestling background, I think Greco-Roman, not sure. The anti-grappling was borne out of their knowledge and experience in that.

I was not a grappler. But learning from someone who was and gleaming knowledge from them is kind of the whole teacher-student paradigm is it not? But even with that, EB always encouraged us to go out and see for ourselves and try what we had learned against others who were trained in grappling.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> A clinch is much more useful in a sporting competition, where you know you will not get head butted than in self defense.



If you are worried about getting headbutted. Clinching can actually prevent that. Because you deny them room to wind up. Just work on good head position.

If they have the better head position. Generally they have the better clinch. And can headbutt your face off. The Thai clinch does not have that head involvement as much as say double under hooks.


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> And some good old fashioned skepticism is fine. What I think people are perceiving from you though is cynicism.
> 
> What's the saying? "A cynic knows that price of everything and the value of nothing".
> 
> I'm not a student of those guys so I can't speak for them.  I have had the opportunity to train some with sifu Yannis about 16 years ago at one of Emin's fighter camps, him I can speak for. He's one tough SOB, as is Emin. Their stuff works.
> 
> I will give you this. WC does not demo well. it comes across rather weak and even kind of silly looking. And with anything, there is both good and bad and everything in between. Don't rely on what you see on youtube to make an informed decision about WC.
> You really need to find someone who is decent at their craft and give it a go.
> You may be quite surprised at what you find.



Well keep in mind, that opinion wasn't about WC, it was about anti-grappling. I view WC as a fine martial art. I feel that when certain exponents make wild claims like some of the anti-grappling videos have, then there's a problem.

That said, I'll be in northern Ohio and Southern Michigan until January. Are there any WC schools you recommend I visit?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Isn't a good takedown defense?



It's a good counter for "single leg". If you can apply a counter like this, you are already a good grappler yourself. 

For the interest of discussion, that counter does have one weakness. When your opponent 

- puts your leading leg between his legs,
- locks both of his legs, and
- uses his body weight to press down on your upper leg,

you will have no place to go but to go down.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> A clinch is much more useful in a sporting competition, where you know you will not get head butted than in self defense.


The "head butt" is a 2 ways street in clinch.






This is why it's always a good idea to control your opponent's head during the clinch.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> The videos referenced are commercially made and sold DVDs.  The goal for these videos is profit.



Not all of the videos posted on threads like this are for profit, some are just videos of people who want to share what they think is useful.



Steve said:


> I've said before, the bar for teachers and school owners SHOULD be much higher than for non-teachers and non-school owners.  Like myself, Hanzou is not a school owner or a teacher.  It would serve little purpose, if any, for him to post videos of himself in the context of a thread discussing concerns regarding some specific videos and claims by well established WC guys on the topic of anti-grappling.



The real issue I was attempting to address with my post was that both of them seem to think YouTube videos are incontrovertible evidence that grappling/MMA?BJJ/boxing or whatever are superior to everything else. They then post videos that they think proves their case and then bash them to death and claim that they are some sort of authority on things and when people disagree with them they say "show us a video and prove your claims". Personally I would like to see the same evidence (a video of them) that they are qualified to judge others in the manner in which they do.



Steve said:


> My impression is that the guys who posted these videos, and who are trying to sell these DVDs on anti-grappling are well established, well known WC instructors.  People, clearly, take their word for it if they say technique is sound.  If the technique is NOT sound, can't we all agree that's a bad thing?
> 
> The conversation gets so emotional.  I get that to an extent.  But, it all really boils down to the specific techniques shared.  And if these are on the "highlight reel" trying to sell the DVDs, we can construe that the rest of the DVD contains the same.
> 
> Once again, the issue isn't the philosophy and the theory.  It's in the specific application demonstrated in the videos.  As long as we remain theoretical and abstract, there's room for everyone to get emotional.  But I believe that if we get specific, we can actually make some progress.
> 
> For example, I would characterize the videos posted in another thread to be concerning, for reasons I outlined in that thread.  The video posted by Drop Bear is what I would call solid "anti-grappling."  While I don't know if it's good WC, I can say that it appears to be somewhat legit technique for defending the take down and remaining on your feet when a competent wrestler clinches with you.
> 
> If there's one thing I've learned recently, it's that you CMA guys think fundamentally differently than I.  We just flat out don't see things the same way.  This is a good thing, IMO.  But it's only made it more clear to me that I cannot replicate your thought processes on my own, and vice versa.  A bunch of CMA'ists just flat out cannot sit around and think like grapplers, developing "anti-grappling" in a vacuum.
> 
> The call to action on the part of the grappling contingent here has been  pretty consistent, simply build the technique with grapplers.  That  doesn't mean train BJJ (although not a bad idea, IMO).  It doesn't mean  borrow techniques from folk wrestling, sambo, CaCC wrestling, Judo or  BJJ (although again, could be okay if done wisely).  It DOES mean  working out the techniques outside of the clinical laboratory of like  minded MA'ists.   The video Drop Bear posted was a technique developed in cooperation with competent grappling.  The techniques being defended were applied realistically and the grapplers reactions were consistent with what a grappler might actually do.   And so, if trained well, there is a good chance that the technique will help and not hurt.
> 
> I can't say the same for many of the techniques shown in the various "anti-grappling" threads.  What I've seen are techniques that will likely just make your situation worse and not better.  It's not my ego saying that.  It's actual grappling experience, seeing in these techniques things that would actually help me and hurt you.



I can't argue with that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Something just occurred to me.  Isn't self defense training a worst case scenario type thing?



The worse case scenario would be being unsuccessful in the self defense. 



Steve said:


> RTKDCMB: what if you couldn't drop your hips because the shot was too deep?  What if you didn't "drop him?"  What if you're now on your back and his hips are in front of yours (ie, you are bottom under mount), the mount is very high, limiting use of your arms and putting a tremendous amount of pressure directly on your diaphragm making it difficult to breathe, and he is using his forearm and elbow to strike your face?



Like any defense against anything, if first you don't succeed, do something else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, that opinion wasn't about WC, it was about anti-grappling.



I have tried to point this out in one of my posts. If someone says that the long fist system (my primary system) doesn't have good "anti-grappling" strategy, I will say that I have to agree with him. The reason is simple. If you think you can knock your opponent down before he can take you down, you don't need to have any grappling knowledge. 

 In another thread, I have also suggested the following:

If you are a striker, try to have 20 rounds sparring with your grappler opponent daily.

- If you can knock him down 1st, you win that round.
- If your opponent can take you down 1st, he win that round.

Try this for the next 3 months, collect the final record after your 600 rounds sparring, and share your final result here. Because different opponents, the final result may be different. If we can combine 10 or even 20 different final results, we may be able to draw some meaningful conclusion here.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> If you are worried about getting headbutted. Clinching can actually prevent that. Because you deny them room to wind up. Just work on good head position.
> 
> If they have the better head position. Generally they have the better clinch. And can headbutt your face off. The Thai clinch does not have that head involvement as much as say double under hooks.



The hard part is getting to that point without getting head butted, its not a fits all situation but if you are going to clinch on the street it is something to be concerned about. With double underhooks you are vulnerable to a double palm slap to the ears.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I haven't found any "boxing anti-grappling" clip yet, but the following clips make no sense to me.

1. wrestling anti-grappling:






2. MMA anti-grappling:


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, that opinion wasn't about WC, it was about anti-grappling. I view WC as a fine martial art. I feel that when certain exponents make wild claims like some of the anti-grappling videos have, then there's a problem.
> 
> That said, I'll be in northern Ohio and Southern Michigan until January. Are there any WC schools you recommend I visit?



Sorry, don't know of any in that area. I used to know a guy in Detroit but that was over a decade ago and I'm not even sure if he's still there.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I haven't found any "boxing anti-grappling" clip yet, but the following clips make no sense to me.
> 
> 1. wrestling anti-grappling:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. MMA anti-grappling:



What doesn't make sense to you in those clips? They look mostly pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> What doesn't make sense to you in those clips? They look mostly pretty reasonable to me.


The wrestling is grappling. The MMA also includes grappling. 

Does the following make sense?

- Judo anti-grappling,
- BJJ anti-grappling,
- boxing anti-striking,
- Christian ant-Christ,
- communist anti-communist,
- ...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> ...hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.



I have nothing but respect and admiration for those WC practitioners who have spent time working with legitimate skilled grapplers to develop and test methods for making their art work against grappling. Some of the WC exponents on this board, such as yak sao, say they have put in that time.  Kudos to them!  Some WC folks on YouTube, such as Mr. Izzo and Mr. Young, have clearly done the same. Kudos to them as well.

Where I can not offer commendations is for those practitioners of WC (or any other art) who have elected to offer instruction on fighting against grappling which is clearly based on armchair theorizing and has not been tested with actual grapplers.  I don't get as riled up about it as Hanzou does, because I understand that Sturgeons Law certainly applies to martial arts and it's not my job to police the 90%.

Suppose the countryside was being ravaged by roaming gangs of rogue Wing Chun practitioners and so I felt compelled to develop a specific "Anti-WC" curriculum. I might have some ideas about tactics and techniques to try based on my (minimal) live exposure to WC, my experiences sparring with other types of striking styles, and various videos of WC practitioners fighting other people. Possibly some of those ideas might even be valid. If I started offering instruction based on those untested ideas, I would be a fool.  Before I started presenting myself as an expert on the subject, I would need to find a bunch of skilled WC practitioners to work with, preferably from different lineages, and spend some serious time testing and refining my approach to the topic.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The wrestling is grappling. The MMA also includes grappling.
> 
> Does the following make sense?
> 
> - Judo anti-grappling,
> - BJJ anti-grappling,
> - boxing anti-striking,
> - Christian ant-Christ,
> - communist anti-communist,
> - ...



Sure. The point of "anti-grappling" is to prevent a grappler from using his grappling skills to control you, take you down, or submit you and thereby maintain a range where you can win using your strikes. Both clips do a decent job of showing techniques that someone who preferred striking could use to negate the clinch and the takedown in order to keep the fight in the striking range. 

You are correct that these techniques are part of grappling. "Anti-grappling" is a subset of grappling.


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> A clinch is much more useful in a sporting competition, where you know you will not get head butted than in self defense.


I think it depends on the situation and the training you do. Clinching with a bigger guy is more complicated but getting inside someone's defences and driving the knees into the groin, abdomen, chest and ultimately head is a big part of Krav. Also the position of your arm on the near side of the neck and the pressure of the neck makes a head butt unlikely. Against a weapon, again we train to immobilise his weapon arm which is basically a clinch. Head butts might seem to be an issue but when the speed picks up they become less of an issue, a little like locks and holds where it looks like you might get punched. In reality the punch doesn't arrive.

Of course, it also depends on whether you attacker had ever trained to head butt. Not that it requires any great skill but I'm not sure it's top of mind of someone who has tried to attack you and is suddenly grabbed instead. All of a sudden the attacker is the attacked. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> The hard part is getting to that point without getting head butted, its not a fits all situation but if you are going to clinch on the street it is something to be concerned about. With double underhooks you are vulnerable to a double palm slap to the ears.



It would be a pretty munty palm slap.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, that opinion wasn't about WC, it was about anti-grappling.* I view WC as a fine martial art*. I feel that when certain exponents make wild claims like some of the anti-grappling videos have, then there's a problem.
> 
> That said, I'll be in northern Ohio and Southern Michigan until January. Are there any WC schools you recommend I visit?


Really? :spitcoffee:  I need a new keyboard!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> Really? :spitcoffee:  I need a new keyboard!



In fairness to Hanzou, he has made the point in previous comments that he is not criticizing WC as a martial art. Rather he is criticizing those particular WC practitioners who step outside their area of expertise and offer silly applications for grappling situations.


----------



## Argus

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have nothing but respect and admiration for those WC practitioners who have spent time working with legitimate skilled grapplers to develop and test methods for making their art work against grappling. Some of the WC exponents on this board, such as yak sao, say they have put in that time.  Kudos to them!  Some WC folks on YouTube, such as Mr. Izzo and Mr. Young, have clearly done the same. Kudos to them as well.
> 
> Where I can not offer commendations is for those practitioners of WC (or any other art) who have elected to offer instruction on fighting against grappling which is clearly based on armchair theorizing and has not been tested with actual grapplers.  I don't get as riled up about it as Hanzou does, because I understand that Sturgeons Law certainly applies to martial arts and it's not my job to police the 90%.
> 
> Suppose the countryside was being ravaged by roaming gangs of rogue Wing Chun practitioners and so I felt compelled to develop a specific "Anti-WC" curriculum. I might have some ideas about tactics and techniques to try based on my (minimal) live exposure to WC, my experiences sparring with other types of striking styles, and various videos of WC practitioners fighting other people. Possibly some of those ideas might even be valid. If I started offering instruction based on those untested ideas, I would be a fool.  Before I started presenting myself as an expert on the subject, I would need to find a bunch of skilled WC practitioners to work with, preferably from different lineages, and spend some serious time testing and refining my approach to the topic.



Excellent post. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue as well.

And, much amused at your example. Anyone want to join my Wing Chun gang? Grab your poles and knives! Oh, and let's get some Keun Kuit tattoos!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Argus said:


> Excellent post. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue as well.
> 
> And, much amused at your example. Anyone want to join my Wing Chun gang? Grab your poles and knives! Oh, and let's get some Keun Kuit tattoos!



See, this is why it's important to get feedback from the people you are training to fight. I was thinking through possible approaches for handling chain punches and trapping hands, but I didn't even consider that I need counters for the long pole and butterfly knives as well.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness to Hanzou, he has made the point in previous comments that he is not criticizing WC as a martial art. Rather he is criticizing those particular WC practitioners who step outside their area of expertise and offer silly applications for grappling situations.


Maybe, maybe not. It's a fine line.

Did this one cross it?



Hanzou said:


> And where can we go to see these WC masters using their grappling skills against highly skilled grapplers? When has a WC master stepped up and challenged professional grapplers to show his/her skill in a public arena or showcase?
> 
> Oh that's right, *never*.
> 
> As Tony said, Bjj has already proven that it is effective against striking. Say what you will about the Gracies and Bjj, but at least they stepped to the plate and put their butts on the line to prove their claims. We have hundreds of challenge matches and thousands of MMA and NHB fights to pull from to validate their claims. No one doubts the validity of BJJ versus a person punching and kicking, but the difference is that the exponents of Bjj earned that respect.
> 
> WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same.


_"And where can we go to see these WC masters using their grappling skills against highly skilled grapplers?"_   That is a challenge to all WC masters, nothing even to do with anti-grappling.


And this is pretty specific. _"WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same."_ That is denigrating all WC anti-grappling, not just bad technique.

I have a fair idea of Mr Hanzou's opinion of WC and most other MAs, especially TMAs from countless posts.
:asian:


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

yak sao said:


> I've been sitting back watching the sparks fly on this thread but have finally decided to weigh in.
> 
> I'm a Wing Tsun guy...have been for 20 years now. I trained with Emin Boztepe for 10 of those years and have seen his anti grappling taught first hand. I've seen him personally demonstrate it on countless people...yes even BJJ people (*GASP).
> Let's leave him aside though, he's a big boy and can stand up for himself. Let's talk about my hands on experience.
> 
> I have tried anti grappling concepts numerous times against all types of grapplers, ranging from high school wrestlers, to catch wrestlers to judoka to BJJ people. I've also applied it to good old corn fed country boys who have no real grappling experience other than being strong as a freakin ox and willing to get down and dirty and plant your face in the dirt.
> And guess what?... it works. Is it a magic bullet that gets you out without any effort? No. It is taking the form of MA that I chose to train in and putting in long hard hours of developing my skills then applying these skills against non compliant training partners.
> 
> Grapplers love what they do, I get it. So do I. I don't bash what they do, in fact I appreciate their skill and am always thankful when one of them drops by to allow me the privilege to train with them. We don't thump our chests and call what the other does BS...we learn from each other and move on.
> It's easy to be a forum/keyboard warrior. If the anti grappling you see is bogus in your mind, find your local "anti grappler" and put it to the test....the 2 of you just may learn something together.



WHAT?

I'm sorry, but I have it on good authority from this and countless other threads that BJJ is invincible and WC anti-grappling is fraudulent crap. Surely you must be mistaken?



Sorry, couldn't help myself


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> And this is pretty specific. _"WC exponents who push anti-grappling can't say the same."_ That is denigrating all WC anti-grappling, not just bad technique.



Hanzou seems to be using the term "anti-grappling" exclusively to refer to the silly stuff that shows no understanding of grappling. He indicated no complaints with the YouTube videos of Dominick Izzo or Jin Young (chinaboxer).

He has been (unnecessarily, IMO) rather strident in his commentary on certain martial arts and training methods. However he has made at least a couple of comments prior to the one you were reacting to in which he stated that WC is a perfectly good martial art within its domain of expertise.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

yak sao said:


> I will give you this. WC does not demo well. it comes across rather weak and even kind of silly looking. And with anything, there is both good and bad and everything in between. Don't rely on what you see on youtube to make an informed decision about WC.
> You really need to find someone who is decent at their craft and give it a go.
> You may be quite surprised at what you find.



And now your even saying that YouTube doesn't prove everything? That really is beyond the pale!


Ok, I'll stop now


----------



## jezr74

From a BJJ point of view, what are some examples of good "anti-grappling" principles and techniques that an MA person who prefers stand up could use to shut down a potential tangle with a ground fighter?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

jezr74 said:


> From a BJJ point of view, what are some examples of good "anti-grappling" principles and techniques that an MA person who prefers stand up could use to shut down a potential tangle with a ground fighter?



1) You need to know how to prevent/break away from the clinch. A grappler can use the clinch to stifle your strikes and take you down. The second video in Kung Fu Wang's comment from 1:37 this afternoon shows some good approaches for this purpose.
2) You need to be able to stop a wrestler's shot. Learning how to sprawl is an important element of this. The first video in Kung Fu Wang's comment has some good examples. Drop bear's post from 3:53 yesterday shows another method which can work.
3) If you are taken down, you need to be able to escape the most common bad positions (mount, side mount, headlock) without getting your head pounded in.  There are a few basic high-percentage escapes that you can use which will cover most street situations.  (If things have gotten this far with an actual grappling expert, then you may be in some trouble.)
4) Know how to disengage and stand up safely from the ground.

For basic self-defense, that's all you need. If you are planning to compete in MMA, you also need submission defense so that you can survive long enough to escape if you are taken down.

Knowing how to strike effectively in the clinch without being taken down is another valuable skill.  If you can't disengage from the clinch, you can inflict enough damage to make the other guy want to disengage.

In order to gain basic proficiency at these skills, you don't have to become really good at performing takedowns or controlling position on the ground yourself (although it doesn't hurt). You _do_ need to understand how the takedowns and positional controls work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Allow me to put up this clip again. The "rhino (big fist)" strategy that I have designed for "anti-striking" does have good usage for "anti-grappling". There was no intention to use it for "anti-grappling" to start with, but when you connect both of your arm together, it's very difficult for your opponent to apply 

- head lock,
- under hook,
- over hook,
- arm wrap,

on you. Also most of the Judo throws will have some difficulty to work on you too. Of course the wrestling bear hug, single leg, and double legs can still take you down. But at least you have covered a lot of "anti-grappling" areas.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sure. The point of "anti-grappling" is to prevent a grappler from using his grappling skills to control you, take you down, or submit you and thereby maintain a range where you can win using your strikes. Both clips do a decent job of showing techniques that someone who preferred striking could use to negate the clinch and the takedown in order to keep the fight in the striking range.
> 
> You are correct that these techniques are part of grappling. "Anti-grappling" is a subset of grappling.



If trained separatly but in grappling it isn't. Submissions is a sub set of grappling. But to say you don't train grappling just train submissions. Is just kind of weird.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> And now your even saying that YouTube doesn't prove everything? That really is beyond the pale!
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll stop now



OK you tube does not prove everything but that does not negate YouTube. You would have to come up with either better evidence to counter. Or good reasons why the YouTube video is a poor example.

Not just slogan your way around it.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> WHAT?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have it on good authority from this and countless other threads that BJJ is invincible and WC anti-grappling is fraudulent crap. Surely you must be mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself



No the sarcasm is mostly correct. If you attempted to anti grapple a good grappler you would find it is ineffective. Just like any half look at a problem.

To apply anti grappling you have to have grappling first.

Mma we hit people on the ground. And that is technically anti grappling. But you can't hit people on the ground unless you can position yourself so that there is an opportunity to do so safely without getting caught in a submission.

There are very few shortcuts to acquiring skill.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> It would be a pretty munty palm slap.



I am not sure what munty means but a double palm slap to the ears can be very painful, cause temporary to permanent deafness and can affect your balance The pressure wave produced by a hard slap to the ears can be extremely loud and disorienting. I once had a wad of wax lodged in my ear, I was deaf in that ear for 2 weeks and it was one of the most painful experiences I have ever had.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> I am not sure what munty means but a double palm slap to the ears can be very painful, cause temporary to permanent deafness and can affect your balance The pressure wave produced by a hard slap to the ears can be extremely loud and disorienting. I once had a wad of wax lodged in my ear, I was deaf in that ear for 2 weeks and it was one of the most painful experiences I have ever had.



I am not sure how you would position that double palm.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how you would position that double palm.



We need to look at training good head position. Otherwise your clinch won't work. It does coincidentally put you in the better position to head but. Which in pure grappling is a case of using pressure points applied to the oponants face with your forehead.

How to Practice proper head position in stance « Wrestling


This does not really make my point . but damn.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c6hrouH3iWU


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how you would position that double palm.



Like you were saying your prayers



drop bear said:


>



This slapper looks a little too tense, keep the shoulders relaxed and you will have a faster slap and close the fingers.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Like you were saying your prayers
> 
> 
> 
> This slapper looks a little too tense, keep the shoulders relaxed and you will have a faster slap and close the fingers.




And that is why the slapee will be in in a really nice position to be hit?

Actually considering you are probably being punched in the face while you are trying that I don't mind the shoulders.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> And that is why the slapee will be in in a really nice position to be hit?.



Not with both the clincher's hands behind your back he's not.



drop bear said:


> Actually considering you are probably being punched in the face while you are trying that I don't mind the shoulders.



Actually considering you can move your head or use either of your hands to block and you only need to get one slap in and you are doing it at the right time you will not be getting punched.


----------



## Tez3

Surely though 'anti grappling' is just another name for 'defences against...' ?

You learn a technique ie a takedown and then you learn the defence against it. You can of course just learn the defence but it can't be thought of as anything new can it?

What works and doesn't is open for discussion but point is that 'anti grappling' is still just defences against whatever.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Surely though 'anti grappling' is just another name for 'defences against...' ?
> 
> You learn a technique ie a takedown and then you learn the defence against it. You can of course just learn the defence but it can't be thought of as anything new can it?
> 
> What works and doesn't is open for discussion but point is that 'anti grappling' is still just defences against whatever.


Why do you have to phrase it in such simple terms? People might start to understand and we wouldn't want that ... would we?
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Surely though 'anti grappling' is just another name for 'defences against...' ?
> 
> You learn a technique ie a takedown and then you learn the defence against it. You can of course just learn the defence but it can't be thought of as anything new can it?
> 
> What works and doesn't is open for discussion but point is that 'anti grappling' is still just defences against whatever.



I re read the original article in that context and anti grapple is new because street I think. Which would make sense because then it does not have to work against a grappler or in competition.

I don't know if I can copy paste the bit. But where it asks why they don't just do grappling. And then goes on to say just hit the groin to get them off mount.

Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Surely though 'anti grappling' is just another name for 'defences against...' ?You learn a technique ie a takedown and then you learn the defence against it. You can of course just learn the defence but it can't be thought of as anything new can it?What works and doesn't is open for discussion but point is that 'anti grappling' is still just defences against whatever.


The problem is when you begin making ludicrous claims that your ineffective and very basic takedown defenses can stop any grappler, or advanced grapplers.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> The problem is when you begin making ludicrous claims that your ineffective and very basic takedown defenses can stop any grappler, or advanced grapplers.



I actually don't like the bit before that. Where the assumption is that you can short cut your way through a problem instead of learning a skill properly.

You can but you are going to be crap. 

Now some people don't care if they are crap. I don't. I have other things I really need to do that takes me away from being good. But I accept that I am going to be worse than somone who is putting the time and effort in.

It is where people rationalise that gets me.

Anti grapple seems like a rationalisation. But then again catch wrestling is only dominant due to strength is a rationalisation as well. It is an easy trap to fall Into.

I sucked. I got smashed and now have to get better. It is a hard lesson but an important one.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> Like you were saying your prayers
> 
> 
> 
> This slapper looks a little too tense, keep the shoulders relaxed and you will have a faster slap and close the fingers.



I'm sorry but I was howling with laughter at you calling the chap a slapper! A slapper has a very specific meaning here in the UK and it has nothing to do with being slapped, the chap in the photo would most certainly be offended, perhaps that's why he was tense! :lfao:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> The problem is when you begin making ludicrous claims that your ineffective and very basic takedown defenses can stop any grappler, or advanced grapplers.


I'm not sure that they make any claims other than advertising rhetoric. I can teach most people karate to a reasonable level. What I teach should provide that student with the means to defend himself in an emergency. The training is not designed for him to go into the ring or to go and pick a "monkey dance" fight. I make no claims as to the outcome of any altercation. The techniques I have taught should equip him to deal with your average street thug. That includes defending against being taken to the ground.

What you are calling ineffective may be quite effective if taught properly. What you have described before is poor application of technique, not necessarily poor technique per se. Whether you consider something ineffective or not is up to you. I see lots of things I would do differently but I don't go round labelling everything ineffective or fraudulent.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I'm not sure that they make any claims other than advertising rhetoric.


 
Does that make it any better? A false claim is still a false claim. I would even argue that making a false claim and profiting from it is even worse.



> What you are calling ineffective may be quite effective if taught properly. What you have described before is poor application of technique, not necessarily poor technique per se. Whether you consider something ineffective or not is up to you. I see lots of things I would do differently but I don't go round labelling everything ineffective or fraudulent.



I don't label *everything* ineffective or fraudulent, just things that are are actually ineffective or fraudulent.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Does that make it any better? A false claim is still a false claim. I would even argue that making a false claim and profiting from it is even worse.



If you want to enforce truth in advertising good luck to you. Instead of Horatio I will just call you Don.  Exaggerated claims are scarcely the sole domain of WC.



Hanzou said:


> I don't label *everything* ineffective or fraudulent, just things that are are actually ineffective or fraudulent.


True. BJJ isn't ineffective or fraudulent ... everything else is!


----------



## Tez3

However with 'fraud busting' being against the rules here, perhaps this isn't the right place to do it?


----------



## geezer

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry but I was howling with laughter at you calling the chap a slapper! A slapper has a very specific meaning here in the UK and it has nothing to do with being slapped, the chap in the photo would most certainly be offended, perhaps that's why he was tense! :lfao:




I learn something new every day here. For example:



*slapper*

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary

*English[edit]*

*Etymology[edit]*

For senses 3 and 4, the OED tentatively quotes the _Bloomsbury Dictionary of Contemporary Slang_: "This working class term from East London and Essex is probably a corruption of shlepper or schlepper, a word of Yiddish origin, one of whose meanings is a slovenly or immoral woman."
*Noun[edit]*

*slapper* (_plural_ *slappers*)


(countable) One who, or that which, slaps.
(countable, slang, dated) Anything monstrous; a whopper.(Can we find and add a quotation of Grose to this entry?)
(countable, UK, Ireland, slang) A prostitute.
(countable, UK, Ireland, Australia, slang) A woman of loose morals.
Select targeted languages




Afrikaans: slet
French: putain (fr) f
German: Schlampe (de) f



Scottish Gaelic: luid f, leodag f, reipseach f, slapag f
Spanish: zorra (es) f, ramera (es) f, puta (es) f
Swedish: slampa (sv) c


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> 1) You need to know how to prevent/break away from the clinch. A grappler can use the clinch to stifle your strikes and take you down.



Agree!

In order to be able to do so, you will need to understand each and every single clinch situation. Besides that you will need to understand what function it can perform, you will also need to know:

1. How to prevent if from happening?
2. How to break away when it happens?
3. How to take advantage on it when it happens?

For example, When your opponent tries to grab your wrist, you can

1. move your arm away and don't let him to grab you. This is easy to do. You just keep some distance between his hand and your arm. 
2. break it away when he has already grabbed on you. This is also easy to do, you just twist your arm to against his thumb.
3. take advantage on his grabbing and apply your locking skill on him. In order to do this, you will need to be good in joint locking skill.

When your opponent gets you 

- an "under hook", he also lets you to get a free "over hook" on him. 
- an "over hook", he also lets you to get a free "under hook" on him. 
- a "head lock", he also lets you to get a free "under hook" on him.
- a "bear hug", he also lets you to get a free "head lock" on him.
- ...

Do you know how to take advantage on those different "contact points" that your opponent gives you for free?

Since there are a lot of different clinch situations, there are a lot of knowledge and skill you will need to develop. After you have developed those skills, you are already a reasonable "grappler" yourself.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> If you want to enforce truth in advertising good luck to you.



I'm not trying to enforce anything, I'm merely pointing out a false claim.



> Exaggerated claims are scarcely the sole domain of WC.



It isn't exaggerated, its outright false. Also I never claimed that such was the sole domain of WC.



> True. BJJ isn't ineffective or fraudulent ... everything else is!



You said that. Not me.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> However with 'fraud busting' being against the rules here, perhaps this isn't the right place to do it?



When the claim is this;



> _In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun&#8217;ers. _
> 
> _*He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure*._
> 
> _This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun_


_

And the result is this;

_



Do we really need to discuss fraud busting?


----------



## Blindside

RTKDCMB said:


> I am not sure what munty means but a double palm slap to the ears can be very painful, cause temporary to permanent deafness and can affect your balance The pressure wave produced by a hard slap to the ears can be extremely loud and disorienting. I once had a wad of wax lodged in my ear, I was deaf in that ear for 2 weeks and it was one of the most painful experiences I have ever had.



One of my students burst an eardrum in sparring last Monday (lateral stick strike to the ear).  It didn't impact him at all with regard to function for the rest of the fight, or the next two fights for that matter.  He did say that him getting water in his ear the next day hurt like a mother @##$@.

Maybe it would be different if it was a double strike to both ears at the same time, but just one didn't really slow him down, and this wasn't even a very high intensity fight where adrenalin might be carrying you through the pain.


----------



## drop bear

Blindside said:


> One of my students burst an eardrum in sparring last Monday (lateral stick strike to the ear).  It didn't impact him at all with regard to function for the rest of the fight, or the next two fights for that matter.  He did say that him getting water in his ear the next day hurt like a mother @##$@.
> 
> Maybe it would be different if it was a double strike to both ears at the same time, but just one didn't really slow him down, and this wasn't even a very high intensity fight where adrenalin might be carrying you through the pain.



Charles sonen of course likes a good ear slap


----------



## Blindside

Who is Charles Sonen?


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> When the claim is this;
> 
> 
> 
> And the result is this;
> 
> [/FONT][/I][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really need to discuss fraud busting?



Well, we don't call this 'anti-grappling however, approx. 2 weeks ago one of my fighters finished his fight in the 2nd round almost exactly as shown here (other than the strikes to the groin). Was in the opponents guard; crossed the opponents arms and the fight concluded by RSC due to excessive punches.


----------



## drop bear

Blindside said:


> Who is Charles Sonen?



chael sonnen spell checker got me.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


>



That looks no more or less effective than your average MMA ground and pound.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, When your opponent tries to grab your wrist, you can
> 
> 1. move your arm away and don't let him to grab you. This is easy to do. You just keep some distance between his hand and your arm.
> 2. break it away when he has already grabbed on you. This is also easy to do, you just twist your arm to against his thumb.
> 3. take advantage on his grabbing and apply your locking skill on him. In order to do this, you will need to be good in joint locking skill.



4) Punch him in the face.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That looks no more or less effective than your average MMA ground and pound.



Your "average" MMA ground and pound is from the mount position, not the guard position. You'll never be able to punch your way out of a properly applied guard.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Blindside said:


> One of my students burst an eardrum in sparring last Monday (lateral stick strike to the ear).  It didn't impact him at all with regard to function for the rest of the fight, or the next two fights for that matter.  He did say that him getting water in his ear the next day hurt like a mother @##$@.
> 
> Maybe it would be different if it was a double strike to both ears at the same time, but just one didn't really slow him down, and this wasn't even a very high intensity fight where adrenalin might be carrying you through the pain.



Some questions.

1) How hard was the strike?
2) How long was the contact (Was it an elastic or inelastic collision)?
3) Was there a momentary pause after he got hit?
4) Was there a complete seal on his ear hole (the pressure wave does more damage when it has nowhere else to go)?
5) Did his head move with the blow?

A double ear slap is not a finishing technique it is a set up or a distraction for a finishing technique.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Your "average" MMA ground and pound is from the mount position, not the guard position. You'll never be able to punch your way out of a properly applied guard.



So no one ever punches when someone has them in a guard position? The position is not the issue.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That looks no more or less effective than your average MMA ground and pound.



You skill set really isn't about GNP. It is avoiding the other guys.

OK it kind of is but the focus on it is far less.

But otherwise hand trapping from there is part of the MMA skill set.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> So no one ever punches when someone has them in a guard position? The position is not the issue.



Sure they do, and they could definitely get some shots in there. However, those couple of shots pale in comparison to the chokes, armlocks, and sweeps the guy on the bottom can do. 

In short, attempting to break the (closed) guard with punches is a pretty dumb thing to do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> 4) Punch him in the face.



When your opponent's right leading hand grabs on your right leading wrist, if your try to use your left back hand to punch on his face, he can use his right hand to drag your right arm to your left, not only your body will spin to your left, your right leading arm will jam your left back arm. Both will prevent your left fist from reaching to his face. 

This is a simple example that during clinch, some punches won't be effective. Your opponent's quick "shaking (a fast downward pulling followed by a fast upward pushing)" on your arm can stop your punching power generate in the early stage.

During clinch, if you pay attention on your opponent's hand grips, his leg will attack your leg.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent's right leading hand grabs on your right leading wrist, if your try to use your left back hand to punch on his face, he can use his right hand to drag your right arm to your left, not only your body will spin to your left, your right leading arm will jam your left back arm. Both will prevent your left fist from reaching to his face.
> 
> This is a simple example that during clinch, some punches won't be effective. Your opponent's quick "shaking (a fast downward pulling followed by a fast upward pushing)" on your arm can stop your punching power generate in the early stage.
> 
> During clinch, if you pay attention on your opponent's hand grips, his leg will attack your leg.



The 3 options you gave that I added to were for a wrist grab not a clinch. If someone grabs your wrist and you choose option 4 you don't wait until he gets a good grip and drags your arm across you.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Sure they do, and they could definitely get some shots in there. However, those couple of shots pale in comparison to the chokes, armlocks, and sweeps the guy on the bottom can do.
> 
> In short, attempting to break the (closed) guard with punches is a pretty dumb thing to do.



That depends on how effectively you punch.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Sure they do, and they could definitely get some shots in there. However, those couple of shots pale in comparison to the chokes, armlocks, and sweeps the guy on the bottom can do.
> 
> In short, attempting to break the (closed) guard with punches is a pretty dumb thing to do.




Yeah sorry but not really. Hitting from inside guard is viable.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=imsvH09NG4g


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends on how effectively you punch.



No it still depends on how effectively you grapple.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=imsvH09NG4g


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Yeah sorry but not really. Hitting from inside guard is viable.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=imsvH09NG4g



Did you actually watch the video? He was using punches to distract while performing a standing guard break. The punches didn't break the guard, the standing guard break broke the guard.

BTW, the punches were actually pretty pointless. You can do the exact same guard break without the punches.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends on how effectively you punch.



Spoken like someone who has never been put into guard before.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> So no one ever punches when someone has them in a guard position? The position is not the issue.



I've seen very nice hammer fists to the chest from guard before, caused the fighter on his back to try and turn so guard was broken.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Your "average" MMA ground and pound is from the mount position, not the guard position. You'll never be able to punch your way out of a properly applied guard.





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Sure they do, and they could definitely get some shots in there. However, those couple of shots pale in comparison to the chokes, armlocks, and sweeps the guy on the bottom can do.
> 
> In short, attempting to break the (closed) guard with punches is a pretty dumb thing to do.



How much sparring have you done with skilled GnP-ers? Have you watched the many professional MMA fighters who specialize at striking from within the guard rather than bothering to work on passing?  It's not only possible to beat someone up and even finish them with strikes from within the guard, but it's been done at the highest levels of competition.



			
				RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> That looks no more or less effective than your average MMA ground and pound.





			
				RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> That depends on how effectively you punch.



Yeah, not really. Effective GnP from within the guard is a tricky technical tactic that required both grappling and striking skills, but probably more grappling than striking. The original clip that Hanzou was complaining about is a very poor demonstration of skill from both the top and the bottom. (It's not fraudulent, just poorly done.)

I'm a pretty mediocre GnP-er myself, which makes me appreciate the skill possessed by the folks who do it well*.  If I'm striking from within the guard, it's usually to provoke openings which will allow me to pass. Alternately I may use pass attempts to provoke openings for my strikes.  The guys who are really good with it know how to shut down the bottom person's technique and just land bombs at will.

*(As an MMA fan I don't care for it because I dislike the aesthetic. I still respect the technical ability involved.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

BTW - if you've ever checked out Mario Sperry's Vale Tudo instructional series, he teaches using punches to open the closed guard - not as a distraction but as the fundamental basis of the technique.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Spoken like someone who has never been put into guard before.



Spoken like someone I've never punched before.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> How much sparring have you done with skilled GnP-ers? Have you watched the many professional MMA fighters who specialize at striking from within the guard rather than bothering to work on passing?  It's not only possible to beat someone up and even finish them with strikes from within the guard, but it's been done at the highest levels of competition.



I have no problem believing that an elite MMA fighter who has trained extensively in grappling, guard work, and striking from within guard could definitely finish someone with strikes from within guard.

I'm not talking about elite MMA fighters though. I'm talking about average Joe martial artists who are watching anti-grappling videos and have limited to no grappling experience.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> I have no problem believing that an elite MMA fighter who has trained extensively in grappling, guard work, and striking from within guard could definitely finish someone with strikes from within guard.
> 
> I'm not talking about elite MMA fighters though. I'm talking about average Joe martial artists who are watching anti-grappling videos and have limited to no grappling experience.



Well, it's true that there's a huge gap between elite MMA fighters and average Joe martial artists.

You can flip that around, however. Your average Joe martial artist is not likely to end up in the situation where they're in the guard of an elite MMA fighter. If average Joe is in a fight and ends up in someone's guard, his opponent is likely to be either a) an untrained person who just caught guard by instinct or b) an average BJJ student who statistically speaking will be either white or blue belt and (the way things are going these days) may have only ever trained for tournament competition rather than street combatives or MMA. In either case, striking from within the guard is a perfectly viable option.


----------



## Blindside

RTKDCMB said:


> Some questions.
> 
> 1) How hard was the strike?
> 2) How long was the contact (Was it an elastic or inelastic collision)?
> 3) Was there a momentary pause after he got hit?
> 4) Was there a complete seal on his ear hole (the pressure wave does more damage when it has nowhere else to go)?
> 5) Did his head move with the blow?
> 
> A double ear slap is not a finishing technique it is a set up or a distraction for a finishing technique.



1) Full power downward diagonal strike from a padded stick
2) Momentary
3) Yes, but since he just took a full power shot to the side of the head from a stick, the cause is difficult to assess to to the earshot or just getting his bell rung.  The sticks we use are about 13 oz, quite heavy for a padded stick, I have TKO'd guys through a fencing mask before with one.
4) No idea, but since it burst his eardrum, I would say the damage was done
5) Yes, quite a bit.


----------



## Buka

I'm in no way an elite anything, but I learned punching from within guard, and punching people IN my guard, the same time I learned the guard. We did it from day one.(closed guard) It's something I originally thought just naturally came with guard work. I'm really glad I was taught that way, you get good at it as the years go by.

I'm not talking about punching a seasoned ju-jitsu man, if I was rolling with one we sure as hell wouldn't be punching. And I don't compete in MMA, but I'd feel just fine and dandy concerning guard punching if I did. Elbowing, too, at least from the bottom.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Getting back to the original topic, one way to look at it is the old adage - "you're only as good as your sparring partners." In this context, that means your "anti-grappling" is only as good as your grappling partners. Likewise your "anti-striking" is only as good as the strikers you train with.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, it's true that there's a huge gap between elite MMA fighters and average Joe martial artists.



To be fair, there's a decent gap between a competing MMA amateur and the average twice a week martial artist.



> You can flip that around, however. Your average Joe martial artist is not likely to end up in the situation where they're in the guard of an elite MMA fighter. If average Joe is in a fight and ends up in someone's guard, his opponent is likely to be either a) an untrained person who just caught guard by instinct or b) an average BJJ student who statistically speaking will be either white or blue belt and (the way things are going these days) may have only ever trained for tournament competition rather than street combatives or MMA. In either case, striking from within the guard is a perfectly viable option.



Yes, but that anti-grappling video is stating that it is designed to counter *advanced *grapplers. I would consider a Bjj exponent from purple onwards to be an advanced grappler. And that video is basically stating that that laughable technique shown in the gif will work on any level grappler that puts you in guard.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, there's a decent gap between a competing MMA amateur and the average twice a week martial artist.



That depends upon the context and the relative experience and skill level, remember it is not the quantity of training that is important it is the quality.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

The whole subject of anti-grappling is a bit of an oxymoron since you have to know quite a bit about grappling to prevent a take down and to also get back up to your feet if you were taken to the ground by a skilled grappler. 

I see why styles try to come up with techniques they called anti grappling techniques but in reality if your not moderately experienced in takedown and grappling arts these techniques are most likely not going to work well against a moderately skilled grappler.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Did you actually watch the video? He was using punches to distract while performing a standing guard break. The punches didn't break the guard, the standing guard break broke the guard.
> 
> BTW, the punches were actually pretty pointless. You can do the exact same guard break without the punches.



Punches have a point in their own right.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> ... remember it is not the quantity of training that is important it is the quality.



I'd say it's both. A fighter who trains 20 hours per week with mediocre instruction is very likely to be more dangerous than a fighter who trains 2 hours a week with really good instruction.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Punches have a point in their own right.



Well sure they do. I was merely pointing out that that guy wasn't breaking the guard with punches. He was breaking the guard with grappling.

Also the vast majority of MMA guys are very good to excellent grapplers in their own right.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I have no problem believing that an elite MMA fighter who has trained extensively in grappling, guard work, and striking from within guard could definitely finish someone with strikes from within guard.
> 
> I'm not talking about elite MMA fighters though. I'm talking about average Joe martial artists who are watching anti-grappling videos and have limited to no grappling experience.


Come on Hanzou, you can't have it both ways. You keep posting crap video to 'prove' that something can't be done then dismiss it when someone shows that it can. You have been referring to the Gracies and others all along to make your points. What you are basically saying is that no average martial artists are capable of doing what the professionals do. That is wrong. You keep telling us that our training is no good on the street because we couldn't compete on the ground with a skilled grappler. Well, duh! We are not training to fight a skilled grappler on the street or anywhere else. The average Joe obviously would be caned by a professional grappler but that is not to say that your average guy can't perform good technique.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, there's a decent gap between a competing MMA amateur and the average twice a week martial artist.


And what has that to do with anything, other to say that you are so much better than the average martial artist?  To me it is obvious that the majority of people on MT made a huge mistake years ago when we chose our style of martial art. Many of us are way too old to change. Now we will go to our graves knowing that none of us achieved our potential. If we had of trained BJJ we may even have got as good as you. 



Hanzou said:


> Yes, but that anti-grappling video is stating that it is designed to counter *advanced *grapplers. I would consider a Bjj exponent from purple onwards to be an advanced grappler. And that video is basically stating that that laughable technique shown in the gif will work on any level grappler that puts you in guard.


Why is every comment you make derogatory and why do you keep banging on about one technique in a video? Move on, you have made your point (at least 10 times), the concept is fraudulent, it is false advertising, the guys demonstrating have no experience, it won't work, it's poor technique, it's laughable, it's a joke, nobody else knows as much and you, no one else can have an opinion ... did I miss anything?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Your "average" MMA ground and pound is from the mount position, not the guard position. *You'll never be able to punch your way out of a properly applied guard*.





Hanzou said:


> In short, *attempting to break the (closed) guard with punches is a pretty dumb thing to do*.





Hanzou said:


> Well sure they do. I was merely pointing out that that guy wasn't breaking the guard with punches. He was breaking the guard with grappling.
> 
> Also the vast majority of MMA guys are very good to excellent grapplers in their own right.


So you've had a change of mind? 
From 'never' to 'possible but dumb'.  
I suppose that's progress.


----------



## geezer

K-man said:


> ...you have made your point (at least 10 times), the concept is fraudulent, it is false advertising, the guys demonstrating have no experience, it won't work, it's poor technique, it's laughable, it's a joke, nobody else knows as much and you, no one else can have an opinion ... did I miss anything?



Yep. You forgot to mention that that Hanzou's system has the coolest logo. Haha.

...but actually, they kinda do.


----------



## K-man

geezer said:


> Yep. You forgot to mention that that Hanzou's system has the coolest logo. Haha.
> 
> ...but actually, they kinda do.


True, but anything has to be better than a logo of two guys doing whatever to each other!


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Come on Hanzou, you can't have it both ways. You keep posting crap video to 'prove' that something can't be done then dismiss it when someone shows that it can.



That "someone" being a martial artist who trains extensively and consistently in grappling. So yes, I can have it both ways. A  dojo having "anti-grappling day" once every blue moon is not the same as the grappling program in a competitive MMA gym. We can't pretend that both are equal in that department because they simply aren't.



> You have been referring to the Gracies and others all along to make your points. What you are basically saying is that no average martial artists are capable of doing what the professionals do. That is wrong. You keep telling us that our training is no good on the street because we couldn't compete on the ground with a skilled grappler. Well, duh! We are not training to fight a skilled grappler on the street or anywhere else. The average Joe obviously would be caned by a professional grappler but that is not to say that your average guy can't perform good technique.



Where did I say anything about the Gracies? Also the only people I've been criticizing have been anti-grappling folks in those videos I posted and quoted from. Why do you feel that I'm talking about or attacking you specifically?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> A  dojo having "anti-grappling day" once every blue moon is not the same as the grappling program in a competitive MMA gym.



This is true. On the other hand, the "anti-striking" skills of a 2x per week casual sport BJJ hobbyist is not going to be a good match for the boxers in a serious competitive boxing gym.  Serious combat athletes who train hard for long hours are going to have the edge over casual hobbyists regardless of style.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That "someone" being a martial artist who trains extensively and consistently in grappling. So yes, I can have it both ways. A  dojo having "anti-grappling day" once every blue moon is not the same as the grappling program in a competitive MMA gym. We can't pretend that both are equal in that department because they simply aren't.


I think you have a warped view of other people's training. In your days and a junior in karate you were training a style that had virtually no grappling. We are grappling every training session. Aikido and Krav the same. The difference is that our training is directed at not going to the ground. Every day is an anti-grappling day. Can we be taken to the ground? Sure, then we practise a few techniques to regain our feet. Of course it's not the same grappling programme that you have in a competitive MMA gym. We are not training for competition. But we can train to be effective for the situation we might find ourselves in in the real world.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say anything about the Gracies? Also the only people I've been criticizing have been anti-grappling folks in those videos I posted and quoted from. Why do you feel that I'm talking about or attacking you specifically?


*Hanzou*, you have been criticising everyone and everything. You must be the life of the party when you dine out with friends.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> On the other hand, the "anti-striking" skills of a 2x per week casual sport BJJ hobbyist is not going to be a good match for the boxers in a serious competitive boxing gym.


I assume that sport BJJ hobbyist will not try to stand on his feet and spars against that boxer for 15 rounds.

There is a big difference between "anti-grappling" and "anti-striking". One works in clinch range while the other works in striking range. The nature of combat is after you have entered the clinch range, it's difficult to get back to the striking range again. Unless you can knock your opponent out before the clinch happen, the "anti-grappling" is a continuous task after the clinch. On the other hand, the "anti-striking" is only a short task. If you can avoid the initial few punches and if you can take your opponent down, the stand up striking game will end and the ground game will start .

If you put the best wrestler and the best boxer in the ring, ask them to have 10 rounds match, who will win more rounds? The wrestler or the boxer? I'll say the wrestler will win more rounds for the following reasons:

- When your opponent moves around, if you punch on his head, most of the punching force will be cancelled out by his dodging.
- When you want to punch your opponent, you have to shift weight on your leading leg. That will give your wrestler opponent a chance to either sweep your leg, shoot at that leg, or ...
- To destroy your opponent's balance is always easier than to knock your opponent down.
- ...

So there is a big difference between "anti-grappling" and "anti-striking". You have to learn grappling to be good in "anti-grappling". You don't have to learn boxing to be good in "anti-striking".


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I think you have a warped view of other people's training. In your days and a junior in karate you were training a style that had virtually no grappling. We are grappling every training session. Aikido and Krav the same.



Somehow I think you and I have very different definitions of "grappling".

*



			Hanzou
		
Click to expand...

*


> , you have been criticising everyone and everything. You must be the life of the party when you dine out with friends.



In this thread its only been the Wing Chun/Tsun anti grappling vids and quotes from them that have been criticized.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> In this thread its only been the Wing Chun/Tsun anti grappling vids and quotes from them that have been criticized.



This is why I prefer "general" discussion than "style" discussion. It's much easier to discuss "general striking art" vs. "general grappling art". When people said, "The striking skill in you grappling art system sucks", I would say, "I agree with you 100% there".

The term "anti-grappling" just likes the term "anti-Christ" or "anti-communist", it's a very unfriendly term. It almost declares as if all grapplers are your enemies. That's not very nice.


----------



## jks9199

*Issues with other sites should remain there; each site has its own rules and policies.  Here at Martial Talk, we try to encourage positive and friendly discussion, while discouraging outright bashing and attacks on different styles.  It seems to me that we're drifting towards incivility, and it would be greatly appreciated if everyone could strive to come back towards civil approaches. 

Folks, we all train in our styles because we like the various aspects of them.  Trying to prove one is superior to another is like trying to pin Jello to a board.  Each style has strengths and weaknesses, and we can debate those endlessly.  If you pit one style's strengths against another style's weaknesses... well, duh.  The one is going to look great while the other looks bad.  Flip things around, and the results will likely be reversed, no?  Rather than seeking to show the worst of another style, maybe your argument could be better made by showing the strengths of whatever style... I'm getting enough "X is bad" crap in political ads right now.

Keep the discussion polite and respectful, both of each other, and of the various styles.

jks9199
MT Asst. Administrator


*


----------



## Steve

X is bad.   But XXX is downright naughty.  

Sorry.   Couldn't resist.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> X is bad.   But XXX is downright naughty.
> 
> Sorry.   Couldn't resist.


Yes, but which is more fun?


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I prefer "general" discussion than "style" discussion. It's much easier to discuss "general striking art" vs. "general grappling art". When people said, "The striking skill in you grappling art system sucks", I would say, "I agree with you 100% there".
> 
> The term "anti-grappling" just likes the term "anti-Christ" or "anti-communist", it's a very unfriendly term. It almost declares as if all grapplers are your enemies. That's not very nice.



It's also pretty insulting towards the grappling arts in general. 

I've spent a long time learning and developing my guard. Anti-grappling comes along and says that the only thing you need to defeat the guard is to punch the other guy in the face.







Its nonsense.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Somehow I think you and I have very different definitions of "grappling".
> In this thread its only been the Wing Chun/Tsun anti grappling vids and quotes from them that have been criticized.


I prefer the dictionary definition of grappling. "1. the act of gripping or seizing, as in wrestling". 
All the training I do revolves around entering, controlling and disabling my attacker. Gripping and seizing is exactly what we do. In the act of grappling it is my objective to put my opponent on the ground without necessarily following him down. That requires you to develop a strong centre. Within the context of the thread that alone is anti-grappling. 

Now in this thread you have been constantly criticising WC but the OP was just using WC as an example. Anti-grappling is part of most martial arts as most martial artists, especially RB ones do not want to fight on the ground.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It's also pretty insulting towards the grappling arts in general.
> 
> I've spent a long time learning and developing my guard. Anti-grappling comes along and says that the only thing you need to defeat the guard is to punch the other guy in the face.
> 
> Its nonsense.


No, it is nonsense in your opinion. I'll guarantee if you have a relatively inexperienced grappler on the ground and you hit him in the face he will release. Whether that is the best way or not is a different debate.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> It's also pretty insulting towards the grappling arts in general.
> 
> I've spent a long time learning and developing my guard. Anti-grappling comes along and says that the only thing you need to defeat the guard is to punch the other guy in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its nonsense.



I actually have to agree with you on this Hanzou even though I don't see eye to eye on allot of your statements. 

Yes that video is pretty much a joke but still might help a person against a street fighter that has watched too many cage fights and pulls them in to the guard. 


But no way is that going to save you against an experienced grappler.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> Anti-grappling comes along and says that the only thing you need to defeat the guard is to punch the other guy in the face.
> 
> Its nonsense.


 Could you explain why it's nonsense?  I dont know enough about grappling to understand why punches to the face wouldn't work, am interested to learn why.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Paul_D said:


> Could you explain why it's nonsense?  I dont know enough about grappling to understand why punches to the face wouldn't work, am interested to learn why.



Ill chime in and say if just punching somebody in the face while they pull you in to guard worked people wouldn't use BJJ in MMA. 

Its simple when you go to punch while in top guard your off balancing yourself and an experienced grappler isn't keeping his back glued to the ground like in that video they will be using their legs/hips and arms to off balance you to gain a submission or sweep.


----------



## Paul_D

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Ill chime in and say if just punching somebody in the face while they pull you in to guard worked people wouldn't use BJJ in MMA.
> 
> Its simple when you go to punch while in top guard your off balancing yourself and an experienced grappler isn't keeping his back glued to the ground like in that video they will be using their legs/hips and arms to off balance you to gain a submission or sweep.


Ok makes sense, thanks. Bad video aside,  I assume by not having your back flat on the floor you are pushing your hips up and arching your back to make the gap between them and your face too far for them to reach?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Its simple when you go to punch while in top guard your off balancing yourself and an experienced grappler isn't keeping his back glued to the ground like in that video they will be using their legs/hips and arms to off balance you to gain a submission or sweep.


Agree!

I just tested this on my wife (she has good ground skill) on the floor 10 seconds ago. If she (on top of me) uses her 

- left hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my right leg to press on her left elbow joint. I can then move my right leg over her left shoulder, and press on her neck. 
- right hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my left leg to press on her right elbow joint. I can then move my left leg over her right shoulder, and press on her neck. 

I'm sure others may have better solution than mine.


----------



## Tez3

You could stack them up. Always good to hear them try to breathe. :supcool:


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Could you explain why it's nonsense?  I dont know enough about grappling to understand why punches to the face wouldn't work, am interested to learn why.



I think defending the sweep to get to the punch is the problem.  

But here's a tip.  If the grappler opens his guard, that's a bad sign.  While that can mean an opportunity to pass for you, it also means he at least thinks he's competent to sweep or submit.  

There are no sweeps I am aware of that can be executed from closed guard and only a few submissions (like the Ezekiel).  

Point is a grappler clinging desperately to closed guard is either very worried or very inexperienced.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> I just tested this on my wife (she has good ground skill) on the floor 10 seconds ago. If she (on top of me) uses her
> 
> - left hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my right leg to press on her left elbow joint. I can then move my right leg over her left shoulder, and press on her neck.
> - right hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my left leg to press on her right elbow joint. I can then move my left leg over her right shoulder, and press on her neck.
> 
> I'm sure others may have better solution than mine.



LOL You just wanted an excuse to roll around with your wife i sometimes try that on my wife as well. 

No offense meant to you.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Tez3 said:


> You could stack them up. Always good to hear them try to breathe. :supcool:



And theres multiple defenses to the stack as well but thats if your going against a mediocre or better grappler. 

Not to mention Somebody try's to stack me im going to own their eyes to set up the sweep or lock.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> No, it is nonsense in your opinion. I'll guarantee if you have a relatively inexperienced grappler on the ground and you hit him in the face he will release. Whether that is the best way or not is a different debate.



That's the whole point; A relatively inexperienced grappler isn't going to attack you and put you in the guard position. A white belt in Bjj wouldn't do it, high school wrestlers don't even learn the guard, and a backyard wrestling/MMA enthusiast wouldn't do it either (You can't ground and pound from your back).

The only time you would logically see that position in a street fight is if the person doing the guard was on the defensive against you (and frankly if you're that good against a grappler, why do you need a video?), or if they're so much better than you that they purposely go into guard to toy with you before they choke you into oblivion. But why would they even do that? Again, they would just mount you and dominate you from there.

The very idea that you would ever face someone inexperienced enough in the guard that you could punch them in the face and knock them out is (like I said before) nonsense. It's also a very good indicator of the grappling knowledge displayed in those videos.

Where's the anti-grappling against side control;






You're more likely to see that than anything else.


----------



## Tez3

[Qwould suggestelganger;1663060]And there are defenses to the stack as well but thats if your going against a mediocre or better grappler. 

Not to mention Somebody try's to stack me im going to own their eyes to set up the sweep or lock.[/QUOTE]

There are defences for everything.
I would suggest different techniques against a mediocre opponent from that used against a better one, why waste effort. I have absolutely no idea what your second sentence means I'm afraid.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tez3 said:


> There are defences for everything.
> I would suggest different techniques against a mediocre opponent from that used against a better one, why waste effort. I have absolutely no idea what your second sentence means I'm afraid.



Should we assume our opponent are average Joe, or should we assume our opponent are someone on our own level? 

If you deal with 

- average Joe, when he punches at you, you may hit him back 6 times while his punch is still frozen in the air (it's a joke of course).
- someone on your level, when you make a move, you will expose your weakness, your opponent will take advantage on your weakness and counter you.

To reduce your risk to the minimum when you make any move is very important. This is why when you talk about "anti-grappling", you have to assume that your opponent has as good grappling skill as your striking skill.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That's the whole point; A relatively inexperienced grappler isn't going to attack you and put you in the guard position. A white belt in Bjj wouldn't do it, high school wrestlers don't even learn the guard, and a backyard wrestling/MMA enthusiast wouldn't do it either (You can't ground and pound from your back).
> 
> The only time you would logically see that position in a street fight is if the person doing the guard was on the defensive against you (and frankly if you're that good against a grappler, why do you need a video?), or if they're so much better than you that they purposely go into guard to toy with you before they choke you into oblivion. But why would they even do that? Again, they would just mount you and dominate you from there.
> 
> The very idea that you would ever face someone inexperienced enough in the guard that you could punch them in the face and knock them out is (like I said before) nonsense. It's also a very good indicator of the grappling knowledge displayed in those videos.
> 
> Where's the anti-grappling against side control?


Are you seriously suggesting there is do defence against side control? 

So what you are saying is that a relatively inexperience grappler won't close a guard on you? At what stage do you teach guard to BJJ/MMA newbies?


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Should we assume our opponent are average Joe, or assume our opponent are someone on our own level?
> 
> If you deal with
> 
> - average Joe, when he punches at you, you may hit him back 6 times while his punch is still frozen in the air (it's a joke of course).
> - someone on your level, when you make a move, you will expose your weakness, your opponent will take advantage on your weakness and counter you.
> 
> To reduce your risk to the minimum when you make any move is very important. This is why when you talk about "anti-grappling", you have to assume that your opponent has as good grappling skill as your striking skill.



I always assume my opponent is better than I until proven otherwise, it would be stupid not to. I don't talk anti-grappling at all, I consider it as 'defences against.........' Luckily for me I have both striking and grappling skills so not so fussed about what my opponent wants to do.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Are you seriously suggesting there is do defence against side control?



I'm saying that I have yet to see side control counters displayed in those "anti-grappling" videos.



> So what you are saying is that a relatively inexperience grappler won't close a guard on you? At what stage do you teach guard to BJJ/MMA newbies?



They'll only close guard on you if you're gaining a dominant position. It takes a great deal of skill to utilize an effective guard against an aggressive opponent.  Again, the guard isn't an attacking position (unless you're at a tournament), its a defensive position.  A Bjj stylist isn't going to grab you and jump into their guard. They're going to grab you and put you in side control and ideally the mount.

Example; Ryan Hall is a sports bjj guy who is all about the guard (I think he even created a guard variation). When he had a confrontation at a restaurant, he didn't use the guard a single time. He mounted the guy and controlled him. When the confrontation escalated again, Ryan took his back and choked him out;


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> Could you explain why it's nonsense?



Other than the fact that they believe that you'll need to know how to counter the guard in a *self-defense* situation?

Here's a vid showing how much control you can have in guard;


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> Could you explain why it's nonsense?  I dont know enough about grappling to understand why punches to the face wouldn't work, am interested to learn why.



Punches to the face (or elsewhere) are a perfectly valid tool to use while in the guard.  The problem is that someone who knows how to use the guard effectively will be working to break your posture, break your balance, control distance, control angles, tie you up, and set you up for sweeps and submissions. In order to land effective punches against a skilled grappler without getting swept or submitted, you have to counter all that - maintain correct posture, balance, distance, and angling. If you can do all that, you can beat up the bottom person at will.  It's not easy and takes a lot of practice.

In the clip Hanzou was complaining about, neither person showed any awareness of these factors or made any attempt to control them.  In that situation the top person can land punches pretty easily.  Of course, there's not much point in putting out a video demonstration of how to beat up someone who has no idea of how to defend himself.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

That was entertaining you have to love liquid courage.


----------



## Tez3

ST1Doppelganger said:


> That was entertaining you have to love liquid courage.



I'm so glad I'm retired now and don't have to deal with idiots like that anymore!


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Other than the fact that they believe that you'll need to know how to counter the guard in a *self-defense* situation?


One of the things I teach, and you'll probably pull it to bits, is when you are on the ground and have the opportunity to do a single leg takedown against a standing opponent you almost always end up in the guard position. Apart from the obligatory groin strike  , I would teach you to swing one of his legs over so he is on his side which gives the opportunity for a head shot, a knee to the ribs or side control if you want to restrain him.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> One of the things I teach, and you'll probably pull it to bits, is when you are on the ground and have the opportunity to do a single leg takedown against a standing opponent you almost always end up in the guard position. Apart from the obligatory groin strike  , I would teach you to swing one of his legs over so he is on his side which gives the opportunity for a head shot, a knee to the ribs or side control if you want to restrain him.



Can you give me a description or point me to video showing the variation  of the single leg that you are using?  I don't find that the variations I do normally put me in the guard - especially not the closed guard.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Yep. You forgot to mention that that Hanzou's system has the coolest logo. Haha.
> 
> ...but actually, they kinda do.



Now there is a thread.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tez3 said:


> I always assume my opponent is better than I until proven otherwise, it would be stupid not to. I don't talk anti-grappling at all, I consider it as 'defences against.........' Luckily for me I have both striking and grappling skills so not so fussed about what my opponent wants to do.


That's the right attitude. To be good on both is the best approach IMO. 

The day that I realize that I just can't knock my opponent down every day, the day that I lose interest in striking art. When I try to take my opponent down, I can give 100% that I can and I don't have to control anything. This is the advantage of the grappling art. You don't have to hurt your opponent to test your skill. You just can't do that in the striking art.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Can you give me a description or point me to video showing the variation  of the single leg that you are using?  I don't find that the variations I do normally put me in the guard - especially not the closed guard.


Damn! I can't find it on YouTube therefore it doesn't exist. 

This is certainly not a closed guard but I posted in response to *Hansou*'s assertion that you don't need to pass the guard or counter the guard in an SD situation.  

OK. Scenario. I am on my knees, my attacker launches a kick with his right leg. Leaning into it I block his kick on my right forearm, trap his ankle with my left hand and press down. Rocking forward pressing outwards with my upper right forearm, just inside and below the knee, the attacker falls to his right. Depending where he falls you are normally following in between his legs as he falls back although you sometimes end up to the side. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Ok makes sense, thanks. Bad video aside,  I assume by not having your back flat on the floor you are pushing your hips up and arching your back to make the gap between them and your face too far for them to reach?




No you go the other and pull them in so they have no room to punch. If you are in guard you generally want to be off to the side as it makes it easier to do escapes sweeps or submissions. You can slip punches by moving side to side.

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

Being on your back in guard is generally seen as the worse position to be in in mma. Mostly because the other guy can punch. Some people do it because there skill set there is so good. But it is the exception not the rule.

In bjj you can jump guard and gain advantage from it. In mma you really can,t.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> It's also pretty insulting towards the grappling arts in general.
> 
> I've spent a long time learning and developing my guard. Anti-grappling comes along and says that the only thing you need to defeat the guard is to punch the other guy in the face.
> 
> Its nonsense.



A good friend of mine challenged a guy who claimed to have good "anti-grappling" skill. My friend told his opponent that he would attack his opponent 3 times. If in any of his 3 attacks, his opponent could stand on his feet for more than 3 seconds, his opponent wins that challenge. In all 3 attacks, his opponent was down within 3 seconds. 

It further prove that anti-grappling may work against the average Joe, but it won't work against the best grappler in reality.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Damn! I can't find it on YouTube therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> This is certainly not a closed guard but I posted in response to *Hansou*'s assertion that you don't need to pass the guard or counter the guard in an SD situation.
> 
> OK. Scenario. I am on my knees, my attacker launches a kick with his right leg. Leaning into it I block his kick on my right forearm, trap his ankle with my left hand and press down. Rocking forward pressing outwards with my upper right forearm, just inside and below the knee, the attacker falls to his right. Depending where he falls you are normally following in between his legs as he falls back although you sometimes end up to the side.
> :asian:



You are choosing to be in guard there. Keep hold of his leg and pass to that side and you should scoot in to side control.

Basically you would smush his leg into the ground with your shoulder and then use that as a pivot to get your body around.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> there's not much point in putting out a video demonstration of how to beat up someone who has no idea of how to defend himself.



After you have taken your opponent down, you attack him right at that moment, it's very difficult for him to do anything. There will be no "anti-grappling" that can save you from this.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Damn! I can't find it on YouTube therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> This is certainly not a closed guard but I posted in response to *Hansou*'s assertion that you don't need to pass the guard or counter the guard in an SD situation.
> 
> OK. Scenario. I am on my knees, my attacker launches a kick with his right leg. Leaning into it I block his kick on my right forearm, trap his ankle with my left hand and press down. Rocking forward pressing outwards with my upper right forearm, just inside and below the knee, the attacker falls to his right. Depending where he falls you are normally following in between his legs as he falls back although you sometimes end up to the side.
> :asian:



I wouldn't consider that landing to be a guard, much less a guard that you need to worry about passing.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> After you have taken your opponent down, you attack him right at that moment, it's very difficult for him to do anything. There will be no "anti-grappling" that can save you from this.


Yes, but how do you know it will work? Has he ever used that in a real fight situation?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> Damn! I can't find it on YouTube therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> This is certainly not a closed guard but I posted in response to *Hansou*'s assertion that you don't need to pass the guard or counter the guard in an SD situation.
> 
> OK. Scenario. I am on my knees, my attacker launches a kick with his right leg. Leaning into it I block his kick on my right forearm, trap his ankle with my left hand and press down. Rocking forward pressing outwards with my upper right forearm, just inside and below the knee, the attacker falls to his right. Depending where he falls you are normally following in between his legs as he falls back although you sometimes end up to the side.
> :asian:



Gotcha.

So in this situation, the attacker is down and has no control over you and does not have his legs around you. Why would you choose to stay down and enter his guard? Get up, soccer kick his groin if you have a clear shot, and disengage! You've said yourself that you don't want to be rolling around on the ground.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> Yes, but how do you know it will work? Has he ever used that in a real fight situation?



This is why you (general YOU) need to include this as part of your training. When you throw your opponent down, 

- where his body will land,
- which direction his head will face to,
- how far is between his head and your feet,
- ...

should all be part of your training. Nothing will work without training time involved.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> to do a single leg takedown against a standing opponent you almost always end up in the guard position.



The "single leg" doesn't have to end up in the guard position. There are more than 20 different ways to execute your "single leg". The following are the most common 3 used in the Chinese wrestling. In all 3 cases, you don't have to go down with your opponent at all.

1. &#25187; (Kou) - grab your opponent's leg from outside and throw him backward:






2. &#25487; (Tao) - grab your opponent's leg from inside and throw him backward:






3. &#38169; (Cuo) - push your opponent's leg sideway, push his head sideway, and throw him sideway:






You can even take off and run like hell after you have taken your opponent down by your "single leg". That's the beauty of the "single leg". You can still maintain your "mobility" afterward.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Kung Fu Wang said:


> After you have taken your opponent down, you attack him right at that moment, it's very difficult for him to do anything. There will be no "anti-grappling" that can save you from this.



Now your just cheating with your Shuai jiao Wang. You know most sport martial artist  arent going to realize what hit them when they are thrown and then have to try to break fall in the awkward angles. LOL


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Yes, but how do you know it will work? Has he ever used that in a real fight situation?



http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i3CC9F0EcNw


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> So in this situation, the attacker is down and has no control over you and does not have his legs around you. Why would you choose to stay down and enter his guard? Get up, soccer kick his groin if you have a clear shot, and disengage! You've said yourself that you don't want to be rolling around on the ground.




I think the other guy is re garding as he is being taken down. The leg control should fix that. I don't know if you have done a rbsd system. But they tend to be anti following a guy on to the deck. But due to the fact you are kind of on the deck anyway all you are going to do here is create a bit of space. And give the guy thrown more of a chance to turn things around.

Or this.

Why!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8jfMdZ68mc


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> I just tested this on my wife (she has good ground skill) on the floor 10 seconds ago. If she (on top of me) uses her
> 
> - left hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my right leg to press on her left elbow joint. I can then move my right leg over her left shoulder, and press on her neck.
> - right hand to pin both of my arms, I can use my left leg to press on her right elbow joint. I can then move my left leg over her right shoulder, and press on her neck.
> 
> I'm sure others may have better solution than mine.



Foreplay?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I assume that sport BJJ hobbyist will not  try to stand on his feet and spars against that boxer for 15 rounds.
> 
> There is a big difference between "anti-grappling" and "anti-striking".  One works in clinch range while the other works in striking range.




What is the striking range? I can strike form any range; from a flying side kick to a head butt.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you put the best wrestler and the best  boxer in the ring, ask them to have 10 rounds match, who will win more  rounds? The wrestler or the boxer?



An oversimplification. Depends upon the relative experience and skill.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> So there is a big difference between "anti-grappling" and  "anti-striking". You have to learn grappling to be good in  "anti-grappling". You don't have to learn boxing to be good in  "anti-striking".



To be able to deal with striking you need to have good defense period.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Paul_D said:


> Ok makes sense, thanks. Bad video aside,  I assume by not having your back flat on the floor you are pushing your hips up and arching your back to make the gap between them and your face too far for them to reach?



Who says it has to be a punch and who says it has to be the face?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i3CC9F0EcNw



To kick the back of someone's head while he is on the ground is very deadly. A friend of mine his son was killed this way. There were too much blood in his son's skull. Even the doctor could not do anything.



RTKDCMB said:


> Who says it has to be a punch and who says it has to be the face?



Many years ago, someone dropped his elbow straight down on top of my heart area while I was down. I got back up, suddenly everything in front of my eyes turned into darkness, I fell back down again. I was almost killed that day.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Where's the anti-grappling against side control;



Middle knuckle to the temple, bear hand (Not bare as in empty, bear as in grr, I'm a bear) to the neck, just for starters.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> What is the striking range? I can strike form any range; from a flying side kick to a head butt.
> 
> To be able to deal with striking you need to have good defense period.



Yes! To be able to deal with striking you need to have good defense (to protect your head well), but you don't need to be good in "offense".

As soon as you can tangle your opponent's arms, it will be hard to strike after that. The head butt is always a 2 ways street.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Middle knuckle to the temple, bear hand (Not bare as in empty, bear as in grr, I'm a bear) to the neck, just for starters.




At which point they either collapse or get off you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> Foreplay?



When you have reached to my age, even foreplay won't be able to help much.  :waah:


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> So in this situation, the attacker is down and has no control over you and does not have his legs around you. Why would you choose to stay down and enter his guard? Get up, soccer kick his groin if you have a clear shot, and disengage! You've said yourself that you don't want to be rolling around on the ground.


That's pretty much the deal unless you want to restrain him. I don't want to get into his guard but often you find yourself there. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you (general YOU) need to include this as part of your training. When you throw your opponent down,
> 
> - where his body will land,
> - which direction his head will face to,
> - how far is between his head and your feet,
> - ...
> 
> should all be part of your training. Nothing will work without training time involved.


Yes but according to *Hanzou* if you have never kicked someone in the neck hard enough to break it you don't know it will work in real life. You and I know it will work. *Hanzou* isn't so sure.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> At which point they either collapse or get off you?



Have you ever been hit in the temple or in the neck with a middle knuckle, even softly? Not fun. The middle meningeal artery (MMA) runs along the temple>

Middle Meningeal Artery Anatomy, Function & Diagram | Body Maps


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> Yes but according to *Hanzou* if you have never kicked someone in the neck hard enough to break it you don't know it will work in real life. You and I know it will work. *Hanzou* isn't so sure.



You can always kick on your dummy's head as hard as you can after you have thrown it on the ground. That kick is not shown in this clip because it won't be needed.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Middle knuckle to the temple, bear hand (Not bare as in empty, bear as in grr, I'm a bear) to the neck, just for starters.



Yeah, that's about the worst thing you could possibly attempt. :lfao:


----------



## Paul_D

Why is a bear grip around someone's throat/neck is the worst thing you can do?  I am sure there are worse things.  I have studied throat/neck grabs, applied them and had them applied to me, they would appear to be most effective.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Paul_D said:


> Why is a bear grip around someone's throat/neck is the worst thing you can do?  I am sure there are worse things.  I have studied throat/neck grabs, applied them and had them applied to me, they would appear to be most effective.



Its not a bear grip it is a strike with the smaller knuckles of the first and second fingers.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Have you ever been hit in the temple or in the neck with a middle knuckle, even softly? Not fun. The middle meningeal artery (MMA) runs along the temple>
> 
> Middle Meningeal Artery Anatomy, Function & Diagram | Body Maps




Yes I have.


----------



## Paul_D

Sorry I read it as suggesting a knuckle strike to the temple, and a separate technique of gripping the throat/neck.


----------



## Paul_D

Rener Gracie thoughts on the difference between sport and street, and why striking can make a difference.

The Principles of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu with Rener Gracie - YouTube


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I think the other guy is re garding as he is being taken down. The leg control should fix that. I don't know if you have done a rbsd system. But they tend to be anti following a guy on to the deck. But due to the fact you are kind of on the deck anyway all you are going to do here is create a bit of space. And give the guy thrown more of a chance to turn things around.
> 
> Or this.
> 
> Why!
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l8jfMdZ68mc


Yep. That's very close. I haven't tried wrapping the leg.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Paul_D said:


> Why is a bear grip around someone's throat/neck is the worst thing you can do?  I am sure there are worse things.  I have studied throat/neck grabs, applied them and had them applied to me, they would appear to be most effective.


Mainly because it is not a BJJ technique. Nothing else works.


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> Why is a bear grip around someone's throat/neck is the worst thing you can do?  I am sure there are worse things.  I have studied throat/neck grabs, applied them and had them applied to me, they would appear to be most effective.



He didn't say a grab, he said a strike.

Its about the worst thing you could do for several reasons. The main one being that the person you're striking in side control has a much more dominant position than you have, so if you start trying to punch him, he'll start punching you back, or he'll begin to apply nasty pressure tactics like jamming the blade of his forearm across your neck, adjusting his weight so he is compressing your chest, or smashing your head into the ground with his elbow. 

If he is a submission grappler, he can easily apply arm locks or chokes once you start trying to punch. Your punch has next to no power backing it, so even if you hit his temple (which in of itself is a longshot), you have an incredibly low chance of knocking him out. And that's assuming that he hasn't trapped your arm at this point. Worse, if you're against a skilled grappler, he'll let you start punching, to make the trapping easier. Some of the nastiest chokes in side control comes from trapping the arm against your opponent's neck, and you trying to punch his temple makes that trap a lot easier.

This is why its curious that there are no anti-grappling vids for side control. Side control is a far more dominant position than the guard, and a lot more grapplers use it than just Bjj. Of course, given the laughable guard passing stuff, the absence of side control escapes doesn't surprise me. And if you think I'm giving grapplers too much credit, ask Steve, Tony, Drop, or Brian what its like to grapple against someone who has never grappled before. It's like they've fallen into an ocean and you're a shark.

The ironic thing about all of this is that there are comparatively *simple* ways to get out of side control using grappling. I don't know why you guys insist on making things hard for yourselves.


----------



## Paul_D

ok, but I thought we were still talking about striking or grabbing form on top to someoen below who has you in guard.  Didn't realise we had moved on to side control, I must have missed a few posts, sorry.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> The ironic thing about all of this is that there are comparatively *simple* ways to get out of side control using grappling. I don't know why you guys insist on making things hard for yourselves.


If you're a grappler yes.  But isn't the point of anti-grappling for non grapplers to use different tactics?

A non grappler is never going to out grapple a grappler, so rather than using grappling techniques they need something else.  Even if you do grapple to supplement your other skills you are never going to be as good as someone who only grapples (in the same way that they will never match a boxer for stand up striking).


----------



## K-man

Paul_D said:


> Rener Gracie thoughts on the difference between sport and street, and why striking can make a difference.
> 
> The Principles of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu with Rener Gracie - YouTube


OMG! Quick, take this down. Get someone to remove it ...  immediately! Rener Gracie is saying that a big problem with BJJ is that the ring is different from the street. That can't be right. He said guys training for the ring have no consideration for a street fight, no consideration for punching. "Ridiculous drills that are not street applicable". Surely that can't be right. It is heresy! 

"In sport you don't have to keep it real ... just grapple". Is that right? Surely not! "If people don't remember that sport is different from street .. it's not the same. People learning sport are being confused in thinking they are getting ready for a fight, but they are not. It's possible these days with sport in the BJJ world to get a purple belt or more, and go out in a fight and get beat up."

How can that be? :hmm:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Yes but according to *Hanzou* if you have never kicked someone in the neck hard enough to break it you don't know it will work in real life. You and I know it will work. *Hanzou* isn't so sure.



In this specific case if it doesn't work. It doesnt matter. I won't cost you anything. But if you are counting on the guy dying. I would be hesitant.

So there is kind of two points to that debate.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> He didn't say a grab, he said a strike.
> 
> Its about the worst thing you could do for several reasons. The main one being that the person you're striking in side control has a much more dominant position than you have, so if you start trying to punch him, he'll start punching you back, or he'll begin to apply nasty pressure tactics like jamming the blade of his forearm across your neck, adjusting his weight so he is compressing your chest, or smashing your head into the ground with his elbow.
> 
> If he is a submission grappler, he can easily apply arm locks or chokes once you start trying to punch. Your punch has next to no power backing it, so even if you hit his temple (which in of itself is a longshot), you have an incredibly low chance of knocking him out. And that's assuming that he hasn't trapped your arm at this point. Worse, if you're against a skilled grappler, he'll let you start punching, to make the trapping easier. Some of the nastiest chokes in side control comes from trapping the arm against your opponent's neck, and you trying to punch his temple makes that trap a lot easier.
> 
> This is why its curious that there are no anti-grappling vids for side control. Side control is a far more dominant position than the guard, and a lot more grapplers use it than just Bjj. Of course, given the laughable guard passing stuff, the absence of side control escapes doesn't surprise me. And if you think I'm giving grapplers too much credit, ask Steve, Tony, Drop, or Brian what its like to grapple against someone who has never grappled before. It's like they've fallen into an ocean and you're a shark.
> 
> The ironic thing about all of this is that there are comparatively *simple* ways to get out of side control using grappling. I don't know why you guys insist on making things hard for yourselves.


I reckon there's a huge market for BJJ tee shirts. If you are wearing one absolutely no one would dare fight you and your opponent if you were attacked would immediately roll over and give up because nothing can beat a good grappler.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> In this specific case if it doesn't work. It doesnt matter. I won't cost you anything. But if you are counting on the guy dying. I would be hesitant.
> 
> So there is kind of two points to that debate.


I wouldn't be relying on any one technique to win a fight. That is the premise of kata bunkai. If the first technique fails here is the next.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Yep. That's very close. I haven't tried wrapping the leg.
> :asian:



There are a few options from there. In general it is good to fire a combination of techniques at a guy until one sticks.

He went the wrong way inside guard though. That was super high risk.


----------



## K-man

Paul_D said:


> ok, but I thought we were still talking about striking or grabbing form on top to someoen below who has you in guard.  Didn't realise we had moved on to side control, I must have missed a few posts, sorry.


In future, please pay attention. I order you to write one hundred lines as your punishment.
:s132:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I wouldn't be relying on any one technique to win a fight. That is the premise of kata bunkai. If the first technique fails here is the next.
> :asian:



Actually this will lead on from the bear strike to the temple escape. Now if you fire that one off and it does nothing you are still trapped in side control.so if you are relying on that.  Would say make bloody sure you can knock dudes out before you rely on that as your side control defence.

Otherwise you need a proven side control escape.

But if you are in side control and are smacking them in the head with bear knuckle. Who cares? If it doesn't work you still have him trapped. And I am sure you will figure something out eventually.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> OMG! Quick, take this down. Get someone to remove it ...  immediately! Rener Gracie is saying that a big problem with BJJ is that the ring is different from the street. That can't be right. He said guys training for the ring have no consideration for a street fight, no consideration for punching. "Ridiculous drills that are not street applicable". Surely that can't be right. It is heresy!
> 
> "In sport you don't have to keep it real ... just grapple". Is that right? Surely not! "If people don't remember that sport is different from street .. it's not the same. People learning sport are being confused in thinking they are getting ready for a fight, but they are not. It's possible these days with sport in the BJJ world to get a purple belt or more, and go out in a fight and get beat up."
> 
> How can that be? :hmm:



Rener was referring to those BJJ folks who _only_ train for _sport grappling tournaments_, as opposed to those who train BJJ for street self-defense or MMA.  The latter group train extensively for handling punches, the former do not. (To be fair, an advanced BJJ competitor who only trains for grappling tournaments can still be dangerous, just as a wrestler or boxer or judoka can, however they have some important gaps in their self-defense preparation.)

BTW - I don't think any of the BJJ folks on this board are primarily oriented towards grappling competition.


----------



## Paul_D

K-man said:


> In future, please pay attention. I order you to write one hundred lines as your punishment.


I was hoping for a spanking.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I was hoping for a spanking.



Sprawls.

Best punishment ever.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> Middle knuckle to the temple, bear hand (Not bare as in empty, bear as in grr, I'm a bear) to the neck, just for starters.





Just to be clear, you are advocating that the person on the bottom of side control defend by punching to the temple and neck (using the specialized fist formations you mentioned)?


Yeah, Hanzou is right on this one, bad idea. I'll make the same offer I did regarding punching the groin from bottom of mount. If anyone wants to stop by 4 Seasons MMA in Lexington, KY and start under my side mount, you are welcome to punch me as hard as you like, wherever you like, with whatever fist formation you like from that position and see where it get you.



(RTKDCMB - I realize that's an impractically long trip for you to make. Maybe you can find someone in your neck of the woods who will let you give it a try.)


Before you ask - yes, I have been hit in the temple and the neck before. Remember that I have plenty of full-contact sparring experience.


And no, it's not that I think BJJ is better than any other martial art. I just know that position well enough to know what works from there and what doesn't.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Rener was referring to those BJJ folks who _only_ train for _sport grappling tournaments_, as opposed to those who train BJJ for street self-defense or MMA.  The latter group train extensively for handling punches, the former do not. (To be fair, an advanced BJJ competitor who only trains for grappling tournaments can still be dangerous, just as a wrestler or boxer or judoka can, however they have some important gaps in their self-defense preparation.)
> 
> BTW - I don't think any of the BJJ folks on this board are primarily oriented towards grappling competition.


Mate, the tongue was firmly in the cheek with my post. I have absolute respect for good BJJ, and for good practitioners across the board. We all have our limitations and we all have our strengths. The secret is to know our limitations.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Paul_D said:


> I was hoping for a spanking.


Mmm! OK, *Tez* is in the UK. I'll see what I can arrange.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yes I have.



Please post a video to prove your claim.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Sprawls.
> 
> Best punishment ever.



A bit like a burpee.


----------



## Buka

As to the idea of sport training or self defense training in a grappling art - I think when a practitioner has enough time in (and I do not know how much time that should be), but let's say five years of serious training, I feel a practitioner can differentiate between either, and apply what they know to any circumstance they are in. Maybe it's more time than that, but there comes a time when you would have to be a complete idiot not to be able use what you have in a different situations. 

Think back on your last five years of training. Did you only think about training while you were in the dojo? Hell, we even think about in in our sleep.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to be clear, you are advocating that the person on the bottom of side control defend by punching to the temple and neck (using the specialized fist formations you mentioned)?



As a start since the arm is free.




Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, Hanzou is right on this one, bad idea. I'll make the same offer I did regarding punching the groin from bottom of mount. If anyone wants to stop by 4 Seasons MMA in Lexington, KY and start under my side mount, you are welcome to punch me as hard as you like, wherever you like, with whatever fist formation you like from that position and see where it get you.
> 
> (RTKDCMB - I realize that's an impractically long trip for you to make. Maybe you can find someone in your neck of the woods who will let you give it a try.)




The groin is not normally accessible from that position,the neck and temple strike has a much more immediate effect. A better idea would be to make the hand position and tap yourself in the neck with it and see how much force you can put into it before it becomes too much, it does not take much force to hurt more than a punch. We have all seen the video of the pimp getting KO'd with a forearm/knife hand strike, which wasn't all that powerful. I estimate that a bear hand or middle knuckle strike would have the same effect with about a 10th of the power.




Tony Dismukes said:


> Before you ask - yes, I have been hit in the temple and the neck before. Remember that I have plenty of full-contact sparring experience.



Have you been hit in the temple with a middle knuckle or in the neck with the bear hand, because they are not normally done in full contact sparring.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> The groin is not normally accessible from that position,the neck and temple strike has a much more immediate effect. A better idea would be to make the hand position and tap yourself in the neck with it and see how much force you can put into it before it becomes too much, it does not take much force to hurt more than a punch.



Just tried it. It's annoying, but it's not going to get you out of my side control.



RTKDCMB said:


> We have all seen the video of the pimp getting KO'd with a forearm/knife hand strike, which wasn't all that powerful. I estimate that a bear hand or middle knuckle strike would have the same effect with about a 10th of the power.



a) I think your 10-1 ratio is significantly off.
b) Regardless, if I have a good side control position, you aren't getting even close to 1/10th of that power in your punches to me anyway.





RTKDCMB said:


> Have you been hit in the temple with a middle knuckle or in the neck with the bear hand, because they are not normally done in full contact sparring.



Yeah, but not in full-contact sparring since we usually use boxing gloves for that. Generally it's either accidental impact in what is supposed to be light-contact sparring or else someone demoing a technique too vigorously.

Look, you don't have to take my word for it. I'm just some guy on another continent that you've never met. For all you know I could be making up all my claimed experience and credentials. I would suggest that you find a local MMA or BJJ gym and see if you can find someone who will let you test out your theory. Report back and let us know how it goes.

Just to let you know how your idea looks from my end ... you're primarily a striker, yes? Suppose I were to tell you that my go-to defense against your fastest jab would be to catch your punch in midair and send you flying with a wristlock. You would (rightfully) judge that I had no idea of how a jab works if I thought this was a workable approach.  That's sort of the equivalent of what you're suggesting.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*When you are grappling and you are underneath* and your opponent has a superior position like side control/crossbody, side mount, mount, back, etc. you need to concentrate on improving your position.  Tony, Hanzou, are right in that striking from and inferior position like side mount is just not effective.  Could it work?  Maybe but it is a long, long, long shot if you are up against somebody that knows what they are doing.  Your best bet is to focus on getting better position which will allow you to then strike, submit, sweep, etc.  When grappling I am not worried about strikes from an inferior position.  *They are just so ineffective*.  The only strike that might have an effect is if my eyes get hit and that is a long shot.  Other than that good luck with a strike from an inferior position.  If someone strikes while underneath me and I am mounted, have their back, in crossobody/side control, side mount, etc. then all they are doing is giving me a great opportunity to utilize their limb against them.


----------



## Tez3

I wouldn't say don't strike because it has a distraction factor, you need a viable escape technique in mind though, don't expect to get out by striking but it has it's uses. Also when thinking about striking, (for when it is useful!) think about more than just punches. Think knees, hammer fists, elbows too etc.


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> If you're a grappler yes.  But isn't the point of anti-grappling for non grapplers to use different tactics?



If that is the goal, then better tactics need to be created.



> A non grappler is never going to out grapple a grappler, so rather than using grappling techniques they need something else.  Even if you do grapple to supplement your other skills you are never going to be as good as someone who only grapples (in the same way that they will never match a boxer for stand up striking).



Which is why you need to find a way to work around the grappler's superiority on the ground. Grapplers work around the striker's superiority by closing the distance with clinching, or taking the legs. I gave up looking for that work around, and simply became a grappler myself. However, I understand that not everyone wants to roll around on the ground choking people. It's an acquired taste.

I don't know what a striker would do once they're on their back, but I do know that learning a few simple grappling escapes, and rolling with an advanced grappler couldn't hurt.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> However, I understand that not everyone wants to roll around on the ground choking people. It's an acquired taste.



What a great line! Indeed it is.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> What a great line! Indeed it is.




Rolling around choking people is even better with handcuffs roflmao.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Please post a video to prove your claim.



It is really not that wild a claim. And by the way there is no reason you couldn't bear knuckle people in the temple in mma. It is not illegal.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> As to the idea of sport training or self defense training in a grappling art - I think when a practitioner has enough time in (and I do not know how much time that should be), but let's say five years of serious training, I feel a practitioner can differentiate between either, and apply what they know to any circumstance they are in. Maybe it's more time than that, but there comes a time when you would have to be a complete idiot not to be able use what you have in a different situations.
> 
> Think back on your last five years of training. Did you only think about training while you were in the dojo? Hell, we even think about in in our sleep.




Again this seems to be evidenced when a person can spar multi systems. Which I find people don't have that much trouble doing.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> As a start since the arm is free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The groin is not normally accessible from that position,the neck and temple strike has a much more immediate effect. A better idea would be to make the hand position and tap yourself in the neck with it and see how much force you can put into it before it becomes too much, it does not take much force to hurt more than a punch. We have all seen the video of the pimp getting KO'd with a forearm/knife hand strike, which wasn't all that powerful. I estimate that a bear hand or middle knuckle strike would have the same effect with about a 10th of the power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been hit in the temple with a middle knuckle or in the neck with the bear hand, because they are not normally done in full contact sparring.




I assume the guy on top can get pissed off and rain elbows in this little experiment?  Which would be my best guess at the response to temple knuckle attacks.

I do have a mate of mine who does punch from the bottom. 06:42.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfPpySRTrQ

And even he said it wouldn't work.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Why is a bear grip around someone's throat/neck is the worst thing you can do?  I am sure there are worse things.  I have studied throat/neck grabs, applied them and had them applied to me, they would appear to be most effective.




Actually a  grip around the neck might not be the worst idea. We forearm in throat anyway from there as part of side mount escape. If you could get your hand in there.

What I call either a c choke or the craw is really effective.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> If that is the goal, then better tactics need to be created.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why you need to find a way to work around the grappler's superiority on the ground. Grapplers work around the striker's superiority by closing the distance with clinching, or taking the legs. I gave up looking for that work around, and simply became a grappler myself. However, I understand that not everyone wants to roll around on the ground choking people. It's an acquired taste.
> 
> I don't know what a striker would do once they're on their back, but I do know that learning a few simple grappling escapes, and rolling with an advanced grappler couldn't hurt.



Remember where I said my issue of anti grappling is this idea you can take a short cut?

And you really can't. For the most part.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Rolling around choking people is even better with handcuffs roflmao.


Ah yes.  I have this mate in the UK, *Paul D*. I was meaning to talk to you about catching up to give him a good spanking, but the handcuffs could add whole new dimension.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> ...I understand that not everyone wants to roll around on the ground choking people. It's an acquired taste.
> 
> I don't know what a striker would do once they're on their back, but I do know that learning a few simple grappling escapes, and rolling with an advanced grappler couldn't hurt.



At last we agree!!!_ Hanzou _this is all I was ever getting. Don't like the name and associations conjured up by the term "anti-grappling" then let's call it something else. How about "RGSS" or _Rudimentary Grappling Skills for Strikers_?

 I don't care _what_ you call it, just so its functional and helps my WC students. In fact I've been seriously considering joining a local BJJ club. It would be really fun to do with my son. But at my age and with with my joint issues that may be a dumb idea.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

geezer said:


> At last we agree!!!_ Hanzou _this is all I was ever getting. Don't like the name and associations conjured up by the term "anti-grappling" then let's call it something else. How about "RGS" or _Rudimentary Grappling Skills for Strikers_?
> 
> I don't care _what_ you call it, just so its functional and helps my WC students. In fact I've been seriously considering joining a local BJJ club. It would be really fun to do with my son. But at my age and with with my joint issues that may be a dumb idea.



"RGS " sounds good. Gets to the point. Also negates Kung Fu Wang's complaint that it doesn't make sense for "anti-grappling" to be a subset of "grappling."

How old are you and how bad are your joint issues? I'm 50 years old with some mild arthritis, a bad wrist, and some lumbar vertebral deterioration. I'm still enjoying BJJ. We have a white belt who's a little older than me.  (Dan Inosanto was almost 70 when he got his black belt in BJJ, but I recognize that not many of us are going to be keeping up with Guro Dan.)


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> At last we agree!!!_ Hanzou _this is all I was ever getting. Don't like the name and associations conjured up by the term "anti-grappling" then let's call it something else. How about "RGSS" or _Rudimentary Grappling Skills for Strikers_?
> 
> I don't care _what_ you call it, just so its functional and helps my WC students. In fact I've been seriously considering joining a local BJJ club. It would be really fun to do with my son. But at my age and with with my joint issues that may be a dumb idea.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5wVlZX6Bw9E


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I understand that not everyone wants to roll around on the ground choking people.



Not everyone want to be

- punched on the head,
- kicked on the belly,
- thrown on the ground, 

with full force either. 






Compare to the general MA training, the ground game training is still the easiest one, that's why it's popular today. IMO, the "throwing skill training" is much harder on your old age body compare to the "ground game training".


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the "throwing skill training" is much harder on your old age body compare to the "ground game training".



Yep. That's why many senior judoka start specializing in newaza.


----------



## geezer

Tony, Drop Bear, et. al. --I posted regarding my interest in BJJ vs. health concerns on an old thread in the grappling forum. Perhaps you could check what I posted and give me some general advice.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ]
> 
> Compare to the general MA training, the ground game training is still the easiest one, that's why it's popular today. IMO, the "throwing skill training" is much harder on your old age body compare to the "ground game training".



This is a big reason why quite a few people in Bjj pull their stand up from wrestling instead of Judo. Wrestling takedowns are a lot easier on the body (and easier to learn IMO).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> This is a big reason why quite a few people in Bjj pull their stand up from wrestling instead of Judo. Wrestling takedowns are a lot easier on the body (and easier to learn IMO).



Both can be equal bad. 













This is the worst.






The art of throwing is as simple as to "smash your opponent's head into his neck".


----------



## Hanzou

[video=youtube_share;Y3rcOjrjqM4]http://youtu.be/Y3rcOjrjqM4[/video]

This one I found to be interesting....

The actual breaking of the guard with the hip movement and the elbow wasn't bad. Honestly reminds me of how Bj penn breaks guard. 

However, when the guy passed the guard and started doing "Aikido" on the guy laying on his back, I just shook my head in disgust. They should have really stopped at the guard break.

My question is why does this stuff exist among TMA praticioners?  Does the TMA world simply not understand the purpose of the guard?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> [video=youtube_share;Y3rcOjrjqM4]http://youtu.be/Y3rcOjrjqM4[/video]
> 
> This one I found to be interesting....
> 
> The actual breaking of the guard with the hip movement and the elbow wasn't bad. Honestly reminds me of how Bj penn breaks guard.
> 
> However, when the guy passed the guard and started doing "Aikido" on the guy laying on his back, I just shook my head in disgust. They should have really stopped at the guard break.
> 
> My question is why does this stuff exist among TMA praticioners?  Does the TMA world simply not understand the purpose of the guard?


Last question first. The guard is not part of TMAs. I have never seen it taught in TMA.

In numerous previous posts you have asked why you don't see people sparring the way they train. Then when an Aikidoka actually uses Aikido techniques in this situation you 'shake your head' in disgust.

Amazing!
:idunno:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Last question first. The guard is not part of TMAs. I have never seen it taught in TMA.



I know it isn't. It's something that Bjj introduced to the MA world, and now everyone is trying to find ways to counter it for some reason. I'm curious as to why that is. We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches.



> In numerous previous posts you have asked why you don't see people sparring the way they train. Then when an Aikidoka actually uses Aikido techniques in this situation you 'shake your head' in disgust.
> Amazing!



I shook my head in disgust because its laughable to believe that you could pull off any of that against someone using guard against you. I was generous with the initial guard break (even that one is somewhat questionable, but its better than the stuff shown in WC anti-grappling stuff), but the stuff shown after the "guard pass" is nothing short of fantasy.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> I know it isn't. It's something that Bjj introduced to the MA world, and now everyone is trying to find ways to counter it for some reason. I'm curious as to why that is. We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches..








At least its something BJJ would like to think they introduced to the MA world. It just wasn't concentrated on because rolling around on the ground in a battlefield isn't the best strategy.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I know it isn't. It's something that Bjj introduced to the MA world, and now everyone is trying to find ways to counter it for some reason. I'm curious as to why that is. We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches.


You demonstrated ignorance of Karate, Krav and WC. Why am I surprised you are demonstrating ignorance of Aikido?



Hanzou said:


> I shook my head in disgust because its laughable to believe that you could pull off any of that against someone using guard against you. I was generous with the initial guard break (even that one is somewhat questionable, but its better than the stuff shown in WC anti-grappling stuff), but the stuff shown after the "guard pass" is nothing short of fantasy.


It is only fantasy if you can't get them on. The same as any other submission technique in grappling is fantasy if it isn't working. You have difficulty understanding the difference between demonstrating a technique and using a technique. 

In reality it is your understanding of other martial arts that is laughable. I had thought that there might have been enough comment about style bashing that you might have stopped. Now you start on Aikido.


----------



## K-man

ST1Doppelganger said:


> At least its something BJJ would like to think they introduced to the MA world. It just wasn't concentrated on because rolling around on the ground in a battlefield isn't the best strategy.


Or the street for that matter. 

I have a couple of books on Shaolin Chin Na but hadn't seen that one. Is it good?
:asian:


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> I know it isn't. It's something that Bjj introduced to the MA world, and now everyone is trying to find ways to counter it for some reason. I'm curious as to why that is. We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches.
> 
> 
> 
> I shook my head in disgust because its laughable to believe that you could pull off any of that against someone using guard against you. I was generous with the initial guard break (even that one is somewhat questionable, but its better than the stuff shown in WC anti-grappling stuff), but the stuff shown after the "guard pass" is nothing short of fantasy.



You don't train to stop any punches from hitting you, or do you mean you don't train specifically to stop WC style punches?


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

K-man said:


> Or the street for that matter.
> 
> I have a couple of books on Shaolin Chin Na but hadn't seen that one. Is it good?
> :asian:



I love chin na and would say it has some different locks you don't see in the more common chin na books but its really detailed but still around $20 you can't complain for what it is. 

You should be able to pick up any if the locks you like in it with the joint locking background you have.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> I shook my head in disgust because its laughable to believe that you could pull off any of that against someone using guard against you. I was generous with the initial guard break (even that one is somewhat questionable, but its better than the stuff shown in WC anti-grappling stuff), but the stuff shown after the "guard pass" is nothing short of fantasy.



The initial guard break/pass is missing some of the details necessary to be successful against a killed guard player, but the concept is sound. It's certainly sufficient to deal with an untrained or minimally trained opponent who just instinctively wraps his legs for guard after being taken down.

After the pass, the aikidoka is no longer working against guard. He's in ... I won't call it side mount ... lets say top position on the side against a downed opponent. At this point, his intention is to control and pin his opponent. Classically, this was not done with the opponent's back to the ground as you might see in BJJ/Wrestling/MMA. Instead the objective is to pin the opponent face down where there is less chance of him drawing and using a weapon and his hands can be secured if you are using an arresting technique. I'm not sure whether most Aikidoka normally practice entering into this sort of pin starting with the opponent on a downed position on his back, but I think I may have seen something similar in some related classical jujutsu tradition.

Are these entries as demonstrated workable? Very unlikely against a skilled wrestler/BJJ player/Judoka. An experienced grappler will not feed the energy and arm position that the aikidoka is using to set up the locks. Then again, the same could be said for the standing version of these same moves. No one is likely to feed the standard lunging downward chopping action that many aikido techniques are classically practiced against. In order to apply the techniques in real life, an aikidoka needs a) a lot of skill and b) the understanding of how to adapt the moves to the kind of attacks a real world assailant is likely to use. A sufficiently skilled aikidoka could probably get some variation of those moves against an untrained opponent that he had just taken down.

I'm not sure what the intention of the video was. If the practitioners meant to say, "look at our techniques for beating a killed grappler," then they are out of their league. If they were examining a scenario of "I was throwing my attacker, but I stumbled and went down with him and he instinctively wrapped his legs around me, so here's how I get past that and get back to my original plan of pinning him using aikido until the police show up," then I think they are doing fine.

Many people have debated the street effectiveness of aikido  in general, but style-bashing is against MT rules, so I would suggest not getting into that.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Last question first. The guard is not part of TMAs. I have never seen it taught in TMA.
> 
> In numerous previous posts you have asked why you don't see people sparring the way they train. Then when an Aikidoka actually uses Aikido techniques in this situation you 'shake your head' in disgust.
> 
> Amazing!
> :idunno:


Well, i can't see the video, so I can't know which of the following this is.  If the technique is ridiculous, such as we've seen in some other videos, I can agree with Hanzou's general comment.   Also, is this "sparring" or is it a demonstration on a compliant training dummy a series of techniques performed without resistance?  Because if the latter, it has nothing to do with "sparring how you train."   



Hanzou said:


> I know it isn't. It's something that Bjj introduced to the MA world, and now everyone is trying to find ways to counter it for some reason. I'm curious as to why that is. We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches.


If by BJJ, you mean pre-WWII Judo by way of traditional Japanese Jujutsu, I agree.  Otherwise, you're stretching.  While working from the guard is something that the Gracies, particularly Helio Gracie as the smaller of the two brothers, worked to improve, just about every technique in BJJ is represented in Judo or in traditional folk or CaCC wrestling.  BJJ is like the GE commercials.  They didn't invent the guard.  They just made the guard better.  

REgarding your question, why other styles spend time trying to counter BJJ specifically, my theory is that it has little to do with efficacy and a lot more to do with insecurity and loss of revenue.  BJJ is popular and very commercial right now, just as everyone in the 80's wanted to be a ninja and in the 70's everyone wanted to be a shaolin monk.  I would be very surprised if Karate schools in the 70s didn't specifically mention countering kung fu.  Or in the 80s, if kung fu schools didn't specifically mention counter the ninja techniques.  It's business, pure and simple.  BJJ is cutting into the revenue and that puts some pressure on WC schools or Aikido schools to address it in some manner... to say, "Look... we know BJJ is out there, but it's not ALL that and a bag of chips.  We can do that, too." 

I may be completely off base about all of that, but it's the way the entire thing plays out to me.  But regardless of the why, I wish it weren't so damned incompetent.  That's the part that bothers me.  

I can't see the video, so I might be presuming the worst.  FWIW, if anyone wants to see some cool stuff, Roy Dean is a BJJ Black Belt and also a black belt in Aikikai Aikido, Kodokan Judo and Seibukan Jujutsu.  In my opinion, if you want to learn how Aikido can be incorporated into ground fighting, THIS is the guy to ask... someone who knows both. 



K-man said:


> You demonstrated ignorance of Karate, Krav and WC. Why am I surprised you are demonstrating ignorance of Aikido?


This is just a personal insult.  Attack the post, not the poster.  Do you disagree and believe that the technique shown is viable?  Why?  What principles are being demonstrated in the video and how do you HONESTLY believe that they would fare against a competent grappler?  





> It is only fantasy if you can't get them on. The same as any other submission technique in grappling is fantasy if it isn't working. You have difficulty understanding the difference between demonstrating a technique and using a technique.


This isn't necessarily true.   Contrary to popular opinion, there is such a thing as bad art, bad poetry and bad technique.  It is very possible that the technique being demonstrated is just fundamentally flawed and unsound.  I contend that some of the techniques demonstrated in the WC Anti-Grappling videos was fundamentally flawed and should not be recommended to anyone as viable defense against a competent grappler.  

In Golf, you know you hit the ball well when you don't even feel it impact the club.  It's effortless.  In BJJ, if you're using solid leverage and body mechanics, it doesn't matter how strong or heavy a person is, you can still move him.  

Some extremely gifted athletes can use poor technique and get away with it.  Anderson Silva drops his arms in the pocket.  He can get away with it.  That doesn't make it a good idea. 

Conversely, we can know from a  preponderance of evidence that some technique is sound, even if I cannot execute that technique.  For example, a BJJ white belt may not be able to consistently apply the armbar from guard, even when the opportunity presents itself.  But we know that the technique works because we have ample evidence that it is so.  





> In reality it is your understanding of other martial arts that is laughable.


Another personal attack.  





> I had thought that there might have been enough comment about style bashing that you might have stopped. Now you start on Aikido.


You completely undermine your credibility regarding the ToS when you knowingly violate it yourself.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Or the street for that matter.
> 
> I have a couple of books on Shaolin Chin Na but hadn't seen that one. Is it good?
> :asian:




Interesting how you claim I'm style bashing Aikido, when your post above is a bash against Bjj.

As to your question, no its actually pretty terrible.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> As to your question, no its actually pretty terrible.



LOL i just realized I left out the not between the its really detailed. 

But yes its a very basic not much description on details of lock but I wouldn't go as far as saying its terrible because it is easily found for under $20


----------



## Hanzou

ST1Doppelganger said:


> At least its something BJJ would like to think they introduced to the MA world. It just wasn't concentrated on because rolling around on the ground in a battlefield isn't the best strategy.



Not concentrated on? It was largely ignored by Asian MA. So while the hold existed in many styles, it was Bjj that showed the versatility and effectiveness of fighting from that position.

As Steve points out, the guard exists in Judo as well, but it saw such little use that it didn't even have a formal name attached to it. Not surprising given Judo's general attitude towards newaza in general.

In short, let's give credit where credit's due.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> [video=youtube_share;Y3rcOjrjqM4]http://youtu.be/Y3rcOjrjqM4[/video]
> 
> This one I found to be interesting....
> 
> The actual breaking of the guard with the hip movement and the elbow wasn't bad. Honestly reminds me of how Bj penn breaks guard.
> 
> However, when the guy passed the guard and started doing "Aikido" on the guy laying on his back, I just shook my head in disgust. They should have really stopped at the guard break.
> 
> My question is why does this stuff exist among TMA praticioners?  Does the TMA world simply not understand the purpose of the guard?


Okay. So, hmmm...  okay.  The open is actually kind of okay.  Not sure how well executed the technique was, but the idea of controlling the hips, planting the knee in tailbone and pushing back to open guard is solid technique.  It's just fine.  

The pass is not okay.  It's a very poorly executed knee slide pass and the guy will be very, very lucky to not have his back taken faster than he can say, "AIIIIIIKIIIII!"  

I found a solid knee slide pass video.  It's labeled ninjutsu.  But, that's cool.  It's solid grappling, whatever they call it.





The video above goes the other direction, but there are a few important details.  Unlike the aikido guy, this ninja in a BJJ gi understands that space is the bottom guy's friend and your enemy.  You'll never pass unless you control the space.  He maintains pressure the entire pass.  Second, he controls the bottom guy's leg throughout the pass, to avoid being caught in half guard.  Third, he finishes with control.

This video below is actually a drill, but the technique is sound.  At about 1:30, you'll see that he gets the underhook.  That underhook is what keeps him from having his back taken.  Also, as above, he maintains forward pressure and ends with control.  The underhook is fundamentally important.  Without that underhook, this is not a good technique.  






Regarding the rest, it's not all bad.  Knee on Face is considered a little crude in BJJ... better left to those... Catch Wrestlers (Patoooey!) (Just kidding!).  Seriously, it's considered a little dickish, but it's something I'm familiar with.  And it's perfectly legit.  Very uncomfortable on the bottom.  And the armbar can certainly work from that position.  The rest of it is very questionable.  

Hope this helps.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> [video=youtube_share;Y3rcOjrjqM4]http://youtu.be/Y3rcOjrjqM4[/video]
> 
> This one I found to be interesting....
> 
> The actual breaking of the guard with the hip movement and the elbow wasn't bad. Honestly reminds me of how Bj penn breaks guard.
> 
> However, when the guy passed the guard and started doing "Aikido" on the guy laying on his back, I just shook my head in disgust. They should have really stopped at the guard break.
> 
> My question is why does this stuff exist among TMA praticioners?  Does the TMA world simply not understand the purpose of the guard?



I guess it's the difference between actually having received good practiced technique in Aikido on your own self. Like has been said over and over on this forum, you can't learn or feel this stuff from a video.

I'm almost fanatically sceptical about things, but I have been on the receiving end of good Aikido before and it had me talking to medical friends afterwards who are more versed on human anatomy than I am just to try and understand what took place. I may only be a beginner in MA, but I know when my body responds to a technique in a way I don't want.


----------



## Steve

jezr74 said:


> I guess it's the difference between actually having received good practiced technique in Aikido on your own self. Like has been said over and over on this forum, you can't learn or feel this stuff from a video.
> 
> I'm almost fanatically sceptical about things, but I have been on the receiving end of good Aikido before and it had me talking to medical friends afterwards who are more versed on human anatomy than I am just to try and understand what took place. I may only be a beginner in MA, but I know when my body responds to a technique in a way I don't want.


Are you saying that what is in the video is good Aikido?


----------



## jezr74

Steve said:


> Are you saying that what is in the video is good Aikido?



I see a lot of the video displayed here more of a guideline. What I read in the comments was that the idea of using techniques beyond the guard break is not a viable option. So my reading of the post was not if the Aikido in the video was good or not, but to me, it was indicating that for video face value the possibilities were dismissed or judge to not be a viable option. 

Then the question was asked of TMA practitioners if this existed. I don't think he is after an answer, but I wanted to point out that it he may deem it useless since he may not have an understanding of what's actually being applied. (the soft side of Aikido) It's just something you need to practice and receive to understand what's going on and can't be seen in video. (in my limited understanding as well, but I have received it before, and it has me questioning a lot of things)

Similar to a lot of the post for BJJ techniques, I have to ask more questions to understand the intent and where things are leading to since I can't always see that from a video and what you guys talk about. I find this post pretty interesting from both perspectives as I see it drawing out a lot of things I've never seen discussed before.

I just throw in my 2c when I think I might ad value, or need some clarity. Most of it goes over my head to be honest.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> I guess it's the difference between actually having received good practiced technique in Aikido on your own self. Like has been said over and over on this forum, you can't learn or feel this stuff from a video.



Do I really need to receive good practiced technique in Aikido to point out that no one is going to lay flat like a dead fish while you're passing guard? Much less leave their arms out on either side with zero resistance.

None of that has anything to do with the Aikidoka's techniques.

I understand that this is a demonstration, but if the goal is to show how to pass guard using Aikido, why would all of the resistance end after the guard is broken?



> I'm almost fanatically sceptical about things, but I have been on the receiving end of good Aikido before and it had me talking to medical friends afterwards who are more versed on human anatomy than I am just to try and understand what took place. I may only be a beginner in MA, but I know when my body responds to a technique in a way I don't want.



All that is fine and good, but good technique is only good technique if it is applicable in the real world.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Do I really need to receive good practiced technique in Aikido to point out that no one is going to lay flat like a dead fish while you're passing guard? Much less leave their arms out on either side with zero resistance.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with the Aikidoka's techniques.
> 
> I understand that this is a demonstration, but if the goal is to show how to pass guard using Aikido, why would all of the resistance end after the guard is broken?
> 
> 
> 
> All that is fine and good, but good technique is only good technique if it is applicable in the real world.




 Yeah, nothing wrong with your logic, but is applicable to every video in this thread. What if they are able to do it their way, and others another?

What is the alternative from the guard break? What are the next goals and intent?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Do I really need to receive good practiced technique in Aikido to point out that no one is going to lay flat like a dead fish while you're passing guard? Much less leave their arms out on either side with zero resistance.
> 
> None of that has anything to do with the Aikidoka's techniques.
> 
> I understand that this is a demonstration, but if the goal is to show how to pass guard using Aikido, why would all of the resistance end after the guard is broken?
> 
> 
> 
> All that is fine and good, but good technique is only good technique if it is applicable in the real world.



it's a ... stylized approach to practicing/demoing techniques that is common in aikido. They often have a very similar approach to their standing material, so this isn't something that's a result of them stepping outside their normal area of expertise into ground fighting.

Personally I suspect that the aikidoka who are able to make their techniques work in the real world are the ones who don't stop with practicing these stylized setups for the moves and figure out how to apply them with opponents who move more realistically. That's just my theory, though. I'm certainly not an aikido expert.


----------



## jezr74

Tony Dismukes said:


> it's a ... stylized approach to practicing/demoing techniques that is common in aikido. They often have a very similar approach to their standing material, so this isn't something that's a result of them stepping outside their normal area of expertise into ground fighting.
> 
> Personally I suspect that the aikidoka who are able to make their techniques work in the real world are the ones who don't stop with practicing these stylized setups for the moves and figure out how to apply them with opponents who move more realistically. That's just my theory, though. I'm certainly not an aikido expert.



Yeah I agree. A lot of what I see in these videos and in books are blueprints of possibilities to me. Some I may able to do, others I won't. But the guy or girl next to me might.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  I'll ask again.   Does anyone think that the guard pass technique as shown will work for anyone?  Kman?  Is that "good" aikido?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Yeah, nothing wrong with your logic, but is applicable to every video in this thread. What if they are able to do it their way, and others another?



How would an attempted guard pass cause my entire body to become paralyzed, and unable to respond? There is no logical way they can do it "their" way.



> What is the alternative from the guard break? What are the next goals and intent?



The goal is to gain a better position than being in your opponent's guard which is considered an inferior position. 

Steve posted an example of an alternative.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Okay.  I'll ask again.   Does anyone think that the guard pass technique as shown will work for anyone?  Kman?  Is that "good" aikido?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Which part are you asking about?

The guard break is fine, perhaps not expert level, but fine for a demo.

The pass once the guard is opened will fail against an experienced BJJ player, but could work against a newbie or an untrained person.

 The control and entries into the arm locks are stylized and would look rather different in actual application against someone reacting more realistically. They also would require that the aikidoka be significantly more skilled than his opponent and so would be very unlikely to succeed against an experienced grappler, even in their non-stylized form.

The finishes once the initial entry into the armlock is attained are fine, though obviously they are working from an aikido framework rather than a BJJ approach. (If any aikidoka are reading this thread, they can give feedback as to the quality of the aikido. I'm not familiar enough with the art to nitpick the details.) If you let a skilled aikidoka get you that far, he has a decent chance of finishing the move.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> How would an attempted guard pass cause my entire body to become paralyzed, and unable to respond? There is no logical way they can do it "their" way.
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to gain a better position than being in your opponent's guard which is considered an inferior position.
> 
> Steve posted an example of an alternative.



Ok, so if I keep to a BJJ principle of closing the air gap, I should keep that in mind when seeing a grapple technique shown and your commentary as well?

I do like the vids, but, in my limited understanding, I thought there was ample opportunity to strike the guy in the mount(?) position? Or maybe take an opposing control of the head under the chin\jaw. With the intent of shutting his next positioning by having them try to protect the head neck, after apply some level of trauma in that area.

While I understand it's are non-resistant application of technique for learning\demo purposes. I could see all these techs after the guard break as a possible opportunity. But I'd have to say the one Steve posted would be a higher possible opportunity, but do you think the others are not possible?


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> How would an attempted guard pass cause my entire body to become paralyzed, and unable to respond? There is no logical way they can do it "their" way.



Yep, that's what I mean is the part you would need to experience first hand.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The initial guard break/pass is missing some of the details necessary to be successful against a killed guard player, but the concept is sound. It's certainly sufficient to deal with an untrained or minimally trained opponent who just instinctively wraps his legs for guard after being taken down.
> 
> After the pass, the aikidoka is no longer working against guard. He's in ... I won't call it side mount ... lets say top position on the side against a downed opponent. At this point, his intention is to control and pin his opponent. Classically, this was not done with the opponent's back to the ground as you might see in BJJ/Wrestling/MMA. Instead the objective is to pin the opponent face down where there is less chance of him drawing and using a weapon and his hands can be secured if you are using an arresting technique. I'm not sure whether most Aikidoka normally practice entering into this sort of pin starting with the opponent on a downed position on his back, but I think I may have seen something similar in some related classical jujutsu tradition.
> 
> Are these entries as demonstrated workable? Very unlikely against a skilled wrestler/BJJ player/Judoka. An experienced grappler will not feed the energy and arm position that the aikidoka is using to set up the locks. Then again, the same could be said for the standing version of these same moves. No one is likely to feed the standard lunging downward chopping action that many aikido techniques are classically practiced against. In order to apply the techniques in real life, an aikidoka needs a) a lot of skill and b) the understanding of how to adapt the moves to the kind of attacks a real world assailant is likely to use. A sufficiently skilled aikidoka could probably get some variation of those moves against an untrained opponent that he had just taken down.
> 
> I'm not sure what the intention of the video was. If the practitioners meant to say, "look at our techniques for beating a killed grappler," then they are out of their league. If they were examining a scenario of "I was throwing my attacker, but I stumbled and went down with him and he instinctively wrapped his legs around me, so here's how I get past that and get back to my original plan of pinning him using aikido until the police show up," then I think they are doing fine.
> 
> Many people have debated the street effectiveness of aikido  in general, but style-bashing is against MT rules, so I would suggest not getting into that.



By the way kimora or the hammerlock craps all over the straight arm bar for turning people on their tummies.

Re the vids you might be able to get that wristlock if you were knee riding them.

Random knee ride video.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3EtoAryepDs


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> it's a ... stylized approach to practicing/demoing techniques that is common in aikido. They often have a very similar approach to their standing material, so this isn't something that's a result of them stepping outside their normal area of expertise into ground fighting.
> 
> Personally I suspect that the aikidoka who are able to make their techniques work in the real world are the ones who don't stop with practicing these stylized setups for the moves and figure out how to apply them with opponents who move more realistically. That's just my theory, though. I'm certainly not an aikido expert.




And cue the resisted video.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Rg-8Z3h88

There is a real technique difference between the drilled version and the resisted version. It messed with me for ages. I would get often get some big spazzy noob straight out of a farm who would clamp me and I could rarely apply anything. Even drills could sometimes fail.

Nowadays I do the resisted version all the time and it works better.

Someone has it written in their SIG form follows function.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> We don't spend our time in Bjj trying to stop Aikido throws or WC punches.



Then your training has holes in it.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> it's a ... stylized approach to practicing/demoing techniques that is common in aikido. They often have a very similar approach to their standing material, so this isn't something that's a result of them stepping outside their normal area of expertise into ground fighting.
> 
> Personally I suspect that the aikidoka who are able to make their techniques work in the real world are the ones who don't stop with practicing these stylized setups for the moves and figure out how to apply them with opponents who move more realistically. That's just my theory, though. I'm certainly not an aikido expert.



Stylized in what fashion? The 2 guard breaks and the pass weren't stylized. 

I don't see how you could get those techniques to work when the techniques are based on a highly unrealistic response (i.e. both arms stretched outwards to either side). I have yet to see *anyone* lay like that while in guard, much less not use the lower half of their body to respond to a guard pass attempt.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> And cue the resisted video.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Rg-8Z3h88
> 
> There is a real technique difference between the drilled version and the resisted version. It messed with me for ages. I would get often get some big spazzy noob straight out of a farm who would clamp me and I could rarely apply anything. Even drills could sometimes fail.
> 
> Nowadays I do the resisted version all the time and it works better.
> 
> Someone has it written in their SIG form follows function.




Just a quick note, you've used the word 'spazzy' before but I'm thinking you don't know that it's an offensive word in many places, so that your sentence reads completely differently to how you meant it. Spaz and spazzy are derogatory terms for the disabled. :uhoh:


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Just a quick note, you've used the word 'spazzy' before but I'm thinking you don't know that it's an offensive word in many places, so that your sentence reads completely differently to how you meant it. Spaz and spazzy are derogatory terms for the disabled. :uhoh:



I promise I won't aim the term at the disabled.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I promise I won't aim the term at the disabled.



I wouldn't aim that word at anyone, it's the word itself, it's like the N word.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> While I understand it's are non-resistant application of technique for learning\demo purposes. I could see all these techs after the guard break as a possible opportunity. But I'd have to say the one Steve posted would be a higher possible opportunity, but do you think the others are not possible?



No. Only because the people using the closed guard wouldn't be in that laying position, nor would they allow that guard pass to be successful.

I'm really trying to imagine a scenario where a completely unskilled person would pull guard on someone to the point where you would need to pass it, and I really cannot come up with a single scenario. So the only scenario I can imagine is an Aikidoka trying to show his Bjj  buddy that he can pass his guard. You're not going to pass a Bjj guard with that. Even a no-stripe white belt can stop that guard pass. A blue belt and above will put you to sleep.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> [video=youtube_share;Y3rcOjrjqM4]http://youtu.be/Y3rcOjrjqM4[/video]
> 
> This one I found to be interesting....
> 
> The actual breaking of the guard with the hip movement and the elbow wasn't bad. Honestly reminds me of how Bj penn breaks guard.
> 
> However, when the guy passed the guard and started doing "Aikido" on the guy laying on his back, I just shook my head in disgust. They should have really stopped at the guard break.
> 
> My question is why does this stuff exist among TMA praticioners?  Does the TMA world simply not understand the purpose of the guard?



Ok so i just got done watching the video and would say that yes the guard pass is doable and I was taught similar passes in shoot fighting and BJJ. 

About your comment on why does this stuff exist amongst TMA I would have to say that the TMA people are trying to evolve their art to work in grappling scenarios since its one of the more common trained styles now. 

So a WC practitioner is naturally going to use WC strikes to try to answer the BJJ Guard and an Aikido Practitioner is going to naturally try to adapt his aikido locks in to something he can do while on the ground. 

I will say that I do see why your having an issue wondering why these TMA practitioners are designing most of their ground concepts around defending against the guard when in reality they should be learning the guard for themselves and then coming up with concepts of how to modify their techniques to be applicable while in the bottom guard and against the other dominant grappling positions. 

Personally I have done the opposite of what these TMA practitioners have done and have modified my Kung Fu and other arts techniques to be more of ways to set up reversals and submissions while in the guard and other dominant and non dominant positions. 

I will also say Im intrigued about the sankyo on the ground lock and might just have to play around with that since it's become one of my favorite new locks after recently starting training in Aikido but then again im very open minded with martial arts.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Interesting how you claim I'm style bashing Aikido, when your post above is a bash against Bjj.
> 
> As to your question, no its actually pretty terrible.



Actually it is not, it is an statement on something that is not wise  to do in the street followed by a question about a book.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Ok so i just got done watching the video and would say that yes the guard pass is doable and I was taught similar passes in shoot fighting and BJJ.
> 
> About your comment on why does this stuff exist amongst TMA I would have to say that the TMA people are trying to evolve their art to work in grappling scenarios since its one of the more common trained styles now.
> 
> So a WC practitioner is naturally going to use WC strikes to try to answer the BJJ Guard and an Aikido Practitioner is going to naturally try to adapt his aikido locks in to something he can do while on the ground.
> 
> I will say that I do see why your having an issue wondering why these TMA practitioners are designing most of their ground concepts around defending against the guard when in reality they should be learning the guard for themselves and then coming up with concepts of how to modify their techniques to be applicable while in the bottom guard and against the other dominant grappling positions.
> 
> Personally I have done the opposite of what these TMA practitioners have done and have modified my Kung Fu and other arts techniques to be more of ways to set up reversals and submissions while in the guard and other dominant and non dominant positions.
> 
> I will also say Im intrigued about the sankyo on the ground lock and might just have to play around with that since it's become one of my favorite new locks after recently starting training in Aikido but then again im very open minded with martial arts.




Seriously if you are trying for those locks you are going to have to be knee riding him. It is the only way to make that space.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Tony Dismukes said:


> it's a ... stylized approach to practicing/demoing techniques that is common in aikido. They often have a very similar approach to their standing material, so this isn't something that's a result of them stepping outside their normal area of expertise into ground fighting.
> 
> Personally I suspect that the aikidoka who are able to make their techniques work in the real world are the ones who don't stop with practicing these stylized setups for the moves and figure out how to apply them with opponents who move more realistically. That's just my theory, though. I'm certainly not an aikido expert.



You probably hit this on the nail head. 

Personally im an Aikido rookie and I went in to my first aikido lesson (about 4 months ago) expecting me not to like it since way too many Aikido schools have fallen in to the same category as allot of the tai chi schools that have turned a martial art in to more of a health exercise while leaving the martial aspect on the side burner. I was actually shocked when the instructor taught me a lock i didn't know about Sankyo and everything he did to me actually worked even against me trying to resist it. 

Then again I can't say are the norm in aikido dojos since there's several of us that are ex instructors in different styles ranging from traditional Ju Jitsu, Kung Fu and Judo as well as allot if us having a prior background in BJJ and other grappling arts.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually it is not, it is an statement on something that is not wise  to do in the street followed by a question about a book.



Their is an argument for what you say.  I could go into a complicated post about winning scrambles and the turtle. But at the basic level we are discussing if you are falling on your back and you can. Pull guard.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

drop bear said:


> Seriously if you are trying for those locks you are going to have to be knee riding him. It is the only way to make that space.



Now don't get me wrong im not talking about what that aikido guy is doing. 

I've already been interested in playing with sankyo to set up arm bars or locks the video just has made me a bit more intrigued. 

I was originally thinking of using sankyo to set up the mount arm bar like how some grapplers use the good neck wrist lock to set up the straight arm bar. 

Just like how you can add wrist and finger locks to omloplatas, kimura, and figure four locks while applying submissions. 

I guess its all about thinking outside of competitive grappling while being open minded and thinking about how one can mix arts to compliment each other.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> How would an attempted guard pass cause my entire body to become paralyzed, and unable to respond? There is no logical way they can do it "their" way.



See the issue is you have allot of people that don't understand even the basics of grappling trying turn their art in to anti grappling techniques. 

This is what brings on major criticism on their videos because its quite easily done the majority of the time.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Sankyo done in grappling against a decent grappler now I know this isnt anti grappling but this is more of my approach on how TMA can add to MMA. You can even tell this guys opponent has grappled him before by the way he was trying to keep his hands away from him LOL. 


Check out this video on YouTube:







Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ST1Doppelganger said:


> allot of people that don't understand even the basics of grappling trying turn their art in to anti grappling techniques.



The problem is "not enough testing". If you develop a strategy, you will need to test it against as many people as you can find. Not to just to test it against people in your own style, but to test it against people from other styles. Unfortunately, only the sport environment can give you enough valid testing. If you just want to stay on the "self-defense" side of the fence, there can be some concern there. 

If you have tested your "hip throw" in a striking environment, you may use "under hook" instead of "waist wrap" to eliminate your opponent's free left arm mobility.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Well, i can't see the video, so I can't know which of the following this is.  If the technique is ridiculous, such as we've seen in some other videos, I can agree with Hanzou's general comment.   Also, is this "sparring" or is it a demonstration on a compliant training dummy a series of techniques performed without resistance?  Because if the latter, it has nothing to do with "sparring how you train."


 
So you made the comment before seeing the video yet you agree with *Hanzou*'s comment sight unseen. And I assume that is also coming from your first hand knowledge of top Aikido. :hmm:



Steve said:


> I can't see the video, so I might be presuming the worst.  FWIW, if anyone wants to see some cool stuff, Roy Dean is a BJJ Black Belt and also a black belt in Aikikai Aikido, Kodokan Judo and Seibukan Jujutsu.  In my opinion, if you want to learn how Aikido can be incorporated into ground fighting, THIS is the guy to ask... someone who knows both.



Thank you. I will check Roy Dean out.



Steve said:


> This is just a personal insult.  Attack the post, not the poster.  Do you disagree and believe that the technique shown is viable?  Why?  What principles are being demonstrated in the video and how do you HONESTLY believe that they would fare against a competent grappler?  This isn't necessarily true.   Contrary to popular opinion, there is such a thing as bad art, bad poetry and bad technique.  It is very possible that the technique being demonstrated is just fundamentally flawed and unsound.  I contend that some of the techniques demonstrated in the WC Anti-Grappling videos was fundamentally flawed and should not be recommended to anyone as viable defense against a competent grappler.


My take on the video from an Aikido perspective bearing in mind we are not training to take on highly trained grapplers. Escaping the guard is fine. Applying ikkyo from that position would be extremely difficult but what is being demonstrated is the sequence of Aikido locks from Ikkyo through to gokyo. It is no different to heaps of training videos you will see of flow drills or others even in BJJ. So, could ikkyo be a viable option? Sure, but not in the situation where you reach across and apply it and shown in the video. The same could be said of nikkyo, sankyo and gokyo. When you take video out of context to disparage an art it is, to my mind, simply contemptuous. So yes, in the right environment each of the techniques is viable. Could an inexperienced Aikidoka apply them on the ground? Maybe not, depends on the individual. A competent Aikidoka against a competent grappler? Certainly, if that was the appropriate technique to apply, but not in the way demonstrated because I don't believe that was what the video was about.

Again you are talking blind but supporting *Hanzou*'s comments. Are you suggesting what I said is wrong? Without understanding Bunkai, *Hanzou* called it fantasy, he posted video of what he believed to be Krav to belittle Krav, he has bagged anti-grappling which is specifically a WC term and now he takes a swipe at Aikido. I think I am attacking the posts. You are basing your WC comments on the poor techniques *Hanzou* has posted yet none of us has seen the actual material we are discussing.




Steve said:


> Conversely, we can know from a  preponderance of evidence that some technique is sound, even if I cannot execute that technique.  For example, a BJJ white belt may not be able to consistently apply the armbar from guard, even when the opportunity presents itself.  But we know that the technique works because we have ample evidence that it is so.  Another personal attack.  You completely undermine your credibility regarding the ToS when you knowingly violate it yourself.


And, I think you comments here, sight unseen have said volumes for your credibility.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Interesting how you claim I'm style bashing Aikido, when your post above is a bash against Bjj.


Hmm! Let's look at the post I was replying to ...



ST1Doppelganger said:


> It just wasn't concentrated on because *rolling around on the ground in a battlefield isn't the best strategy.*


to which I said ...



K-man said:


> *Or the street for that matter.*



So exactly what here is a bash against BJJ? Or do you think that rolling around on the ground in a battlefield is the best strategy?

I have no beef with BJJ. I think it is a great MA. If I was 40 years younger I would probably give it a go myself.



Hanzou said:


> As to your question, no its actually pretty terrible.


So now you are also an expert on Chin Na Fa as well?


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Okay.  I'll ask again.   Does anyone think that the guard pass technique as shown will work for anyone?  Kman?  Is that "good" aikido?


I'm not sure that a guard pass is taught at all in most Aikido. I suspect most Aikido schools teach very little ground work. Certainly I have never been shown an 'Aikido' escape from the closed guard. Having said that, do I think that the escape demonstrated is viable? Yes, I think it would work in the majority of situations an Aikidoka might find himself in. Would I go into side control and apply one or the restraints demonstrated? No, personally I would be just regaining my feet, but it is quite on the cards that an Aikidoka could apply locks and holds on the ground.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> How would an attempted guard pass cause my entire body to become paralyzed, and unable to respond? There is no logical way they can do it "their" way.
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to gain a better position than being in your opponent's guard which is considered an inferior position.
> 
> Steve posted an example of an alternative.



The goal is to practice or demonstrate the technique, besides, how do you know they did not do it under full resistance off camera?


----------



## K-man

jezr74 said:


> What is the alternative from the guard break? What are the next goals and intent?





Hanzou said:


> The goal is to gain a better position than being in your opponent's guard which is considered an inferior position.
> 
> 
> Steve posted an example of an alternative.


*jezr* asked a valid question to which you gave an excellent response. However, that 'better position' to most martial artists would be to regain your feet, not continue grappling.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Their is an argument for what you say.  I could go into a complicated post about winning scrambles and the turtle. But at the basic level we are discussing if you are falling on your back and you can. Pull guard.



If I were falling on my back I would rather look to either get up immediately or kick them before they get on top of me. Failing that then I might try something like that but it would not be my first choice.


----------



## seasoned

K-man said:


> *jezr* asked a valid question to which you gave an excellent response. However, *that 'better position' to most martial artists would be to regain your feet, not continue grappling.*


Bingo


----------



## RTKDCMB

Since we are talking about Aikido and resistance at the moment"


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually it is not, it is an statement on something that is not wise  to do in the street followed by a question about a book.



Actually it is. Ground fighting is an effective form of self defense. This has been demonstrated numerous times in many threads.


----------



## Hanzou

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Sankyo done in grappling against a decent grappler now I know this isnt anti grappling but this is more of my approach on how TMA can add to MMA. You can even tell this guys opponent has grappled him before by the way he was trying to keep his hands away from him LOL.
> 
> 
> Check out this video on YouTube:
> 
> aikido wrist lock (sankyo) in grappling - YouTube
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone



Good vid. Wrist locks are actually taught in Bjj;


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So exactly what here is a bash against BJJ? Or do you think that rolling around on the ground in a battlefield is the best strategy?



You didn't say the battlefield, you said the street. Effectively saying that Bjj isn't good for street fighting or self defense. If I had said that about Aikido, you'd be having a fit.



> So now you are also an expert on Chin Na Fa as well?



No, I'm trying to prevent you from buying a bad book. The pictures are bad, and the explanations are minimal. I was highly disappointed. It's not even worth $20 IMO.

You're welcome.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> The goal is to practice or demonstrate the technique..



Which is fine. However if you're demonstrating a technique, you should demonstrate it as it would appear in a live situation, and attempt to include the variables. You shouldn't demonstrate a technique that has zero applicability in a live situation.



> besides, how do you know they did not do it under full resistance off camera?



The issue isn't resistance level. The issue is the lack of a "realistic" response. It's like me demonstrating a rear naked choke, but I got to that rear naked choke by poking my partner in the head, causing him to spin around and land on his stomach, giving me his back. The RNC I'm going to demonstrate is now pointless because there's no way that poke in the head would generate that type of response in a live situation.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> *jezr* asked a valid question to which you gave an excellent response. However, that 'better position' to most martial artists would be to regain your feet, not continue grappling.



Which is what the Aikidoka actually does in one part of the video, and was frankly the best part of the video.

If the video was him simply escaping the guard and getting back to his feet, I would have no problem with it. However as soon as he begins to pass guard and ground fight, the video rapidly loses credibility.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> Effectively saying that Bjj isn't good for street fighting or self defense.



I'll say it.  And I'll clarify so that there's no confusion;  BJJ, a_s taught within a sport context i_s no good (sub-optimal) for street fighting or self defense.  That's why Royce no longer gets invited to teach at the regional training center.  The HL coordinator that was infatuated with the flavor-of-the-month, yet had no personal, practical experience in the field is gone and so is Gracie.  People started realizing, 'hey this is some cool stuff...but we can't actually use it in the field'.  

Some will probably take this as a slam on BJJ.  But it isn't.  BJJ has some elements, that aren't designed for the sport venue that are quite practical for self defense.  But the typical sport variety is sub-optimal and in fact detrimental.  Sport BJJ has the luxury of taking an opponent to the ground and looking for the opportunity to get the submission.  In a self defense situation, you don't have that luxury.  Being on the ground/staying on the ground is fool hardy at best.  Looking to get a submission on an attacker while on the ground means you're not using better methods to gain your feet and scan your surroundings for additional threats.  The video offered in the sparring thread proves this point quite clearly.  The guy on the ground was oblivious to his surroundings and was dialed in on getting a triangle choke rather than regaining his feet.  Neither is a sound tactic for self defense.  As I mentioned, change just one factor and the outcome is different i.e. the guy on top has a buddy in the crowd that kicks the guy on the bottom to sleep.  

Does this mean BJJ is stupid or useless?  No, it does not.  It is quite useful in the venue for which the sport version was designed.  But too many people confuse one methodology with the wrong venue.  I'd rather see someone using sound BJJ strategies and tactics in a real fight than the sport stuff.  What would be a good example of this?  If you're on top of someone, or get on top of someone during a scuffle, digging your elbow into their inner thigh or groin in order to facilitate the opportunity to regain a standing position.  Or using the elbow or forearm to strike into the groin in order to attempt to incapacitate/immobilize (even temporarily) the person so that you can regain your feet.  In this way you can scan the immediate area for additional threats, perhaps facilitate escaping the situation, obtaining an improvised weapon, calling/signaling for help etc.  All useful tactics in a self defense situation.


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'll say it.  And I'll clarify so that there's no confusion;  BJJ, a_s taught within a sport context i_s no good (sub-optimal) for street fighting or self defense.  That's why Royce no longer gets invited to teach at the regional training center.  The HL coordinator that was infatuated with the flavor-of-the-month, yet had no personal, practical experience in the field is gone and so is Gracie.  People started realizing, 'hey this is some cool stuff...but we can't actually use it in the field'.
> 
> Some will probably take this as a slam on BJJ.  But it isn't.  BJJ has some elements, that aren't designed for the sport venue that are quite practical for self defense.  But the typical sport variety is sub-optimal and in fact detrimental.  Sport BJJ has the luxury of taking an opponent to the ground and looking for the opportunity to get the submission.  In a self defense situation, you don't have that luxury.  Being on the ground/staying on the ground is fool hardy at best.  Looking to get a submission on an attacker while on the ground means you're not using better methods to gain your feet and scan your surroundings for additional threats.  The video offered in the sparring thread proves this point quite clearly.  The guy on the ground was oblivious to his surroundings and was dialed in on getting a triangle choke rather than regaining his feet.  Neither is a sound tactic for self defense.  As I mentioned, change just one factor and the outcome is different i.e. the guy on top has a buddy in the crowd that kicks the guy on the bottom to sleep.




So if a woman is suddenly in a compromising position from a boyfriend or a spouse, and she pulls guard in order to apply a triangle choke, or a guard sweep in order to end up in a mounted position so that she could apply a better choke and escape, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for self defense?

So if a young man gets tackled to the ground by a larger person, and quickly transitions to the mounted position and places the attacker in an arm and wrist lock, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for street fighting?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> So if a woman is suddenly in a compromising position from a boyfriend or a spouse, and she pulls guard in order to apply a triangle choke, or a guard sweep in order to end up in a mounted position so that she could apply a better choke and escape, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for self defense?



First, a choke isn't necessarily a sport application.  It _can_ be, but is also a self defense application, it isn't exclusive to one or the other.  The difference is the context in which it is applied.

Let's examine the context of the environment in which she is attacked.  Is this a one-on-one situation?  If so, she has options available to her.  She doesn't have to worry about a secondary attack.  So perhaps she has the luxury of time and focus to place the attacker in a choke in order to end the confrontation.  To better her odds though I would suggest not being so dialed in on getting the choke (as the guy was in the video offered in the sparring thread) that she doesn't take an opportunity presented to obtain an improvised weapon in her vicinity.  Additionally, there have been real world attacks in which the woman had the opportunity to grab and squeeze the testicle of the attacking man which ended the attack.  If choking is the best option available then apply it.  If the opportunity to gouge an eye, or crushing the testicles, or jamming a fingernail up into the armpit or a strike to the throat or regaining the feet or gaining the use of an improvised weapon presents itself it should be taken.  And all of these options should be trained for in regards to a self defense situation.

Again, it is situational and if one factor changes, the game plan needs to change accordingly.  How readily she is able to change gears under duress/stress/injury will depend on her training.



> So if a young man gets tackled to the ground by a larger person, and quickly transitions to the mounted position and places the attacker in an arm and wrist lock, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for street fighting?



In this example, is placing the person in an arm and wrist lock the best solution?  It may very well be the best solution, but this depends upon the context of the attack.  If drunk uncle Bob tackles his nephew at the family BBQ and the nephew gets into the mounted position, as per your example, then he may only want to control the situation and not 'destroy' his uncle in front of the family.  In this context, he probably doesn't have to worry about a secondary attack and can concentrate on controlling his idiot uncle without damaging him unnecessarily.  

But let's change the context of the attack.  The young man is alone, the large man has buddies.  An arm and wrist lock is no longer his best option because it would tie him up in this position and leave him vulnerable to secondary attacks.  Doing something to at least temporarily incapacitating the large man and regaining his feet to be able to fend off additional attack, or better yet, to escape the situation would be a better option. 

Again, as with the above, an arm and wrist lock is not exclusive to sport.  I use locks far more than I do other elements i.e. striking etc.  But I do so when it is appropriate to the situation.  And I train for all of the other considerations so that I have the option to use the best response.


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> First, a choke isn't necessarily a sport application.  It _can_ be, but is also a self defense application, it isn't exclusive to one or the other.  The difference is the context in which it is applied.



Now you're splitting hairs. You said the following;



			
				Kong Soo Do said:
			
		

> I'll say it. And I'll clarify so that there's no confusion; *BJJ, a**s taught within a sport context is no good (sub-optimal) for street fighting or self defense.*


Chokes are taught in sport Bjj. Additionally those chokes are perfectly applicable to a SD scenario, you've admitted as much yourself.



> Let's examine the context of the environment in which she is attacked.



Let's not, because there's no need to go into hyper detail here (we can discuss variables another time). The basic point is that a woman *can* use skills taught in sport Bjj for self defense, and those skills can be very effective in a SD scenario. That falsifies your statement above.

You *agreed* with this general point because you agreed that chokes can be an effective self defense tool. Combine chokes with the ability to control position (again taught in sport Bjj), and you have a very potent combination.



> In this example, is placing the person in an arm and wrist lock the best solution?  It may very well be the best solution, but this depends upon the context of the attack.



Indeed it does, but I'm talking in general here, since you made a very general statement. If you add enough variables, all martial arts eventually become uneffective for self defense.



> Again, as with the above, an arm and wrist lock is not exclusive to sport.



*You* said that sport Bjj is no good for self defense or street fighting. The arm lock and wrist lock are both part of sport Bjj, so saying that those locks (and chokes) are somehow effective in other arts, but not in sport Bjj is either a contradiction, or a style bash.

Take your pick.

Also, I'd also like to point out that Royce wouldn't be teaching sport Bjj in a self defense seminar, so you're not really just talking about sport Bjj here. You're talking Bjj in general.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> Now you're splitting hairs.



Nope.  



> Chokes are taught in sport Bjj. Additionally those chokes are perfectly applicable to a SD scenario, you've admitted as much yourself.



Are chokes taught in sport BJJ?  Yes.  Are chokes taught in WWII Combatives?  Yes.  Neither have the same focus.  We aren't discussing the techniques in-and-of-itself (at least I'm not, you seem to be grabbing at straws), but rather the appropriate application of the techniques within the confines of the venue in which it is used.



> Let's not, because there's no need to go into hyper detail here (we can discuss variables another time).



Yes, lets go into hyper detail as it is obviously needed and germane to the discussion.



> The basic point is that a woman *can* use skills taught in sport Bjj for self defense, and those skills can be very effective in a SD scenario.



Again, it isn't the specific skill but the appropriate application, or choice not to apply, within the context of the attack.  A choke isn't sport or self defense...it is simply a choke.  If used in a sport venue then you MUST have certain factors in place i.e. the time and luxury, a single attacker, no weapons and on and on.  In a self defense situation you cannot rely on these same factors being in place.  They may be, they may not be.  Regardless, it is folly to depend that they will be.  Thus in a self defense situation, a choke may be the best solution to the problem...or it can be an incredibly stupid thing to do.  In a self defense situation, staying on the ground and putting someone in an arm lock may be the best option to solve the problem...or it could be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

You seem to be intent on making sport training the best thing for self defense.  Sorry, it isn't.  Self defense training takes what is applicable from any methodology and applies it to the specifics of a real world altercation.  So many 'things' are common between the two.  Both punch, kick, lock and choke.  But the appropriate application differs as do the factors as related to both.  



> The arm lock and wrist lock are both part of sport Bjj, so saying that those locks (and chokes) are somehow effective in other arts, but not in sport Bjj is either a contradiction, or a style bash.



You unfortunately are taking it as such, but it isn't either.



> Also, I'd also like to point out that Royce wouldn't be teaching sport Bjj in a self defense seminar, so you're not really just talking about sport Bjj here. You're talking Bjj in general.



Really?  He wouldn't?  It's odd, because he was doing exactly that, I was there and I don't recall seeing you.  Which means one of us has first hand knowledge with what he was doing and one of us doesn't.  I'll let you guess which is which.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually it is not, it is an statement on something that is not wise  to do in the street followed by a question about a book.



In the same spirit, that guard pass is unwise.  Without securing an undertook, you will get your back taken.   It is a statement on something that is not wise to do... Anywhere.  

As others have said, the technique is recognizable as a cross knee slide guard pass.  That is the second pass I was taught in bjj.   It's just clear that the demonstrator isn't proficient as he misses at least one critical detail.

Also, from the way he moves in the video, even were the technique detailed correctly, I'm not confident that he could make it work.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> Nope.



Attempting to differentiate the purpose of a choke when it serves the same purpose in both applications is splitting hairs.



> Are chokes taught in sport BJJ?  Yes.  Are chokes taught in WWII Combatives?  Yes.  Neither have the same focus.  We aren't discussing the techniques in-and-of-itself (at least I'm not, you seem to be grabbing at straws), but rather the appropriate application of the techniques within the confines of the venue in which it is used.



So please explain how a properly applied choke (let's use Rickson Gracie's Rear Naked Choke as an example) wouldn't work in a self defense situation?



> Yes, lets go into hyper detail as it is obviously needed and germane to the discussion.



There's no need to. If your statement is true, then sport Bjj is ineffective in all SD situations. In fact, you even said that sport Bjj would *hinder* someone in a SD situation.



> Again, it isn't the specific skill but the appropriate application, or choice not to apply, within the context of the attack.  A choke isn't sport or self defense...it is simply a choke.  If used in a sport venue then you MUST have certain factors in place i.e. the time and luxury, a single attacker, no weapons and on and on.  In a self defense situation you cannot rely on these same factors being in place.  They may be, they may not be.  Regardless, it is folly to depend that they will be.  Thus in a self defense situation, a choke may be the best solution to the problem...or it can be an incredibly stupid thing to do.  In a self defense situation, staying on the ground and putting someone in an arm lock may be the best option to solve the problem...or it could be an incredibly stupid thing to do.



So again;

So if a woman is suddenly in a compromising position from a boyfriend or a spouse, and she pulls guard in order to apply a triangle choke, or a guard sweep in order to end up in a mounted position so that she could apply a better choke and escape, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for self defense?



> You seem to be intent on making sport training the best thing for self defense.



I never said that. Where are you pulling this from?



> You unfortunately are taking it as such, but it isn't either.



Actually it is. 



> Really?  He wouldn't?  It's odd, because he was doing exactly that, I was there and I don't recall seeing you.  Which means one of us has first hand knowledge with what he was doing and one of us doesn't.  I'll let you guess which is which.



I've been to a few Royce Gracie seminars in various Bjj gyms. He's never shown sport-based technique in any of them. Why would he teach a sport-based seminar to a bunch of LEOs at a self-defense based seminar? Your story makes no logical sense.

Maybe you just don't know the difference between sport Bjj and self defense-based Bjj? Or, maybe you think all Bjj is sport-based?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> Attempting to differentiate the purpose of a choke when it serves the same purpose in both applications is splitting hairs.



You're not understanding, or refusing to understand that I'm talking about the venue and the factors that affect the venue.  What may make a choke a good choice in a competition venue does not necessarily apply to self defense.  In essence, a choke maybe be an excellent choice in a sport venue yet be incredibly stupid in a self defense venue.  The difference is the factors involved.  Why are you not understanding this?



> So please explain how a properly applied choke (let's use Rickson Gracie's Rear Naked Choke as an example) wouldn't work in a self defense situation?



I already have, several time in fact.  I've posted this before and everyone seemed to agree.  I'll repost it again.  It isn't a rear naked choke, but the actual technique isn't the point, the venue is the point.

Here is a great thing for the sporting venue:

View attachment 18974

Here's the same thing in the 'street'. Same thing, yet a very bad idea.  

View attachment 18975

Again, we aren't talking about a specific technique, we are talking about it's application in a specific venue (at least that's what I'm talking about).  A choke isn't _sport_ and it isn't _street_, it is simply a choke.  Where it is applied (venue) can make a very big difference.  Do you not understand this?



> In fact, you even said that sport Bjj would *hinder* someone in a SD situation.



I used the word detrimental, but it serves the same purpose.  Why would it be detrimental?  Let's take yet another look (though I've listed this multiple times before).  



Does sport BJJ (or any sport) train you to de-escalate the situation before it becomes a physical altercation?  I've never seen them train that way.  Some fights can be avoided or the aggressor talked down.  The reason sport BJJ doesn't need this is because it doesn't use it.  Imagine two fighters in the octagon and one tries to de-escalate the other prior to the match starting.  That would make a pretty boring pay-per-view wouldn't it.  Yet the opportunity may well exist in many self defense situations.
Does sport BJJ train to escape or evade?  I've not seen any MMA fighters run and jump over the fence to prevent the fight from happening.  Would kind of suck to have your opponent run away or evade you using barriers in a match.  Pretty good idea in a self defense situation though it you are able to do so.
Does sport BJJ use firearms, edged weapons, car keys, car antennas or other improvised weapons?  I've yet to see an ultimate fighter throw sand in the other persons face to distract them.  Or a 'stun-n-run'.
Does sport BJJ train to yell and scream to attract help prior to or during an altercation?  Seems like a good idea if you're attacked in a parking lot.
Does sport BJJ train for multiple opponents?  I've yet to see three guys against one in a match.

These are just a few factors to consider.  Sport BJJ is great for what it was design for...sport BJJ matches.  But SD obviously requires a whole host of other training that is specific to the venue.  If a person only trains for sport and never trains in these other factors they are behind the eight ball.  They aren't going to suddenly 'do' this stuff when under duress/stress/injury.  


> So if a woman is suddenly in a compromising position from a boyfriend or a spouse, and she pulls guard in order to apply a triangle choke, or a guard sweep in order to end up in a mounted position so that she could apply a better choke and escape, you're saying that those skills (all of which are applicable to sport Bjj) weren't good for self defense?



Did you actually read my reply to this question?  Seriously, did you read it and try to understand it?  I've answered it clearly and in detail.



> I've been to a *few* Royce Gracie seminars in various Bjj gyms.



Which means you've not been to _*all*_ of them.  Which means you've not seen what he has taught to every group he's ever trained.  



> He's never shown sport-based technique in any of them.



Which makes me hopeful that he's learned a valuable lesson from past mistakes.


> Why would he teach a sport-based seminar to a bunch of LEOs at a self-defense based seminar?



Precisely my point.  



> Maybe you just don't know the difference between sport Bjj and self defense-based Bjj?



Since I already differentiated between the two, and given examples between the two I'd say it's a good bet that I do know the difference.  



> Or, maybe you think all Bjj is sport-based?



And had you read, in detail, my above posts you would again have seen I made a distinction between the two.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> If I were falling on my back I would rather look to either get up immediately or kick them before they get on top of me. Failing that then I might try something like that but it would not be my first choice.



OK. If you have been knocked over you are not trying to take them down with you?


----------



## drop bear

Does sport BJJ train to escape or evade? I've not seen any MMA fighters run and jump over the fence to prevent the fight from happening. Would kind of suck to have your opponent run away or evade you using barriers in a match. Pretty good idea in a self defense situation though it you are able to do so.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ccfbTG9im0


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> Does sport BJJ train to escape or evade? I've not seen any MMA fighters run and jump over the fence to prevent the fight from happening. Would kind of suck to have your opponent run away or evade you using barriers in a match. Pretty good idea in a self defense situation though it you are able to do so.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ccfbTG9im0



I stand corrected, that was hilarious!  :rofl:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> The issue is the lack of a "realistic" response.


This is the most issue for the online clips. If you have developed something new (such as "anti-grappling"), but you only test it against people in your own style, the clips that you have created may not be realistic enough. 

When 2 MA styles test against each other, both styles will evolve. The issue is, some people don't mind to evolve, others do. Many years ago, I had suggested a Judo friend of mine to include no-Gi train. Today, he still doesn't like to take that path. I assume "to test your skill against people from other systems" is not a common method after all.


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> You're not understanding, or refusing to understand that I'm talking about the venue and the factors that affect the venue.  What may make a choke a good choice in a competition venue does not necessarily apply to self defense.  In essence, a choke maybe be an excellent choice in a sport venue yet be incredibly stupid in a self defense venue.  The difference is the factors involved.  Why are you not understanding this?
> 
> 
> 
> I already have, several time in fact.  I've posted this before and everyone seemed to agree.  I'll repost it again.  It isn't a rear naked choke, but the actual technique isn't the point, the venue is the point.
> 
> Here is a great thing for the sporting venue:
> 
> View attachment 18974
> 
> Here's the same thing in the 'street'. Same thing, yet a very bad idea.
> 
> View attachment 18975
> 
> Again, we aren't talking about a specific technique, we are talking about it's application in a specific venue (at least that's what I'm talking about).  A choke isn't _sport_ and it isn't _street_, it is simply a choke.  Where it is applied (venue) can make a very big difference.  Do you not understand this?



And here we have a woman who used that exact same "sport" technique to stop an armed rapist;

Female US Sailor Triangle Chokes Rapist! - Gracie News
Female US Navy Sailor Puts Rapist To Sleep With Triangle Choke In Dubai | Bjj Eastern Europe



> I used the word detrimental, but it serves the same purpose. Why would it be detrimental? Let's take yet another look (though I've listed this multiple times before).
> 
> 
> 
> Does sport BJJ (or any sport) train you to de-escalate the situation before it becomes a physical altercation? I've never seen them train that way. Some fights can be avoided or the aggressor talked down. The reason sport BJJ doesn't need this is because it doesn't use it. Imagine two fighters in the octagon and one tries to de-escalate the other prior to the match starting. That would make a pretty boring pay-per-view wouldn't it. Yet the opportunity may well exist in many self defense situations.
> Does sport BJJ train to escape or evade? I've not seen any MMA fighters run and jump over the fence to prevent the fight from happening. Would kind of suck to have your opponent run away or evade you using barriers in a match. Pretty good idea in a self defense situation though it you are able to do so.
> Does sport BJJ use firearms, edged weapons, car keys, car antennas or other improvised weapons? I've yet to see an ultimate fighter throw sand in the other persons face to distract them. Or a 'stun-n-run'.
> Does sport BJJ train to yell and scream to attract help prior to or during an altercation? Seems like a good idea if you're attacked in a parking lot.
> Does sport BJJ train for multiple opponents? I've yet to see three guys against one in a match.
> 
> These are just a few factors to consider. Sport BJJ is great for what it was design for...sport BJJ matches. But SD obviously requires a whole host of other training that is specific to the venue. If a person only trains for sport and never trains in these other factors they are behind the eight ball. They aren't going to suddenly 'do' this stuff when under duress/stress/injury.



Here's Ryan Hall, a sport Bjj stylist who used several of those attributes when he had to defend himself in a restaurant;






But Bjj isn't good for self defense right?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> But Bjj isn't good for self defense right?



Finally we agree on something :rofl:


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> And here we have a woman who used that exact same "sport" technique to stop an armed rapist;
> 
> Female US Sailor Triangle Chokes Rapist! - Gracie News
> Female US Navy Sailor Puts Rapist To Sleep With Triangle Choke In Dubai | Bjj Eastern Europe
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Ryan Hall, a sport Bjj stylist who used several of those attributes when he had to defend himself in a restaurant;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Bjj isn't good for self defense right?



I didn't comment on this video earlier but will now since if hope most martial artist would be able to handle someone that waste with ease. 

Not saying BJJ isn't good for self defense i just think a video of a pro BJJ competitor taking out a super drunk person isn't the best example of how it could be a great self defense system.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Sorry about the typos because the iphone spell unassist is pretty amazing and for some reason i cant edit posts correctly


----------



## Hanzou

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I didn't comment on this video earlier but will now since if hope most martial artist would be able to handle someone that waste with ease.
> 
> Not saying BJJ isn't good for self defense i just think a video of a pro BJJ competitor taking out a super drunk person isn't the best example of how it could be a great self defense system.



Well why isn't it? Super drunk people are dangerous as well. Especially super drunk people who are bigger than you are and want to cave your face in.

Ryan did a great job here. He consistently tried to talk the guy down and avoid a confrontation. When that didn't work, he restrained the guy without hurting him. When that didn't work he put him to sleep completely. All without seriously hurting the guy.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> Well why isn't it? Super drunk people are dangerous as well. Especially super drunk people who are bigger than you are and want to cave your face in.
> 
> Ryan did a great job here. He consistently tried to talk the guy down and avoid a confrontation. When that didn't work, he restrained the guy without hurting him. When that didn't work he put him to sleep completely. All without seriously hurting the guy.



Exactly what I've had to do with several of my belligerent friends when they were pill popping drunk idiots (3 different occasions from two of my close friends that also studied judo and or ShootFighting) when I was in my mid 20's. Except i didn't choke them out I just pinned them face down while having a typical cop wrist lock. 

I'm just saying that its not super impressive to be able to manhandle a belligerent drunk people when you have martial arts experience especially if you are a competitive martial artist. 

Did he use BJJ correctly in that scenario yes but it's still not super impressive to use this as a self defense scenario. You can see most of his friends that were with him and including himself really didn't see the drunk guy as a super threatening opponent. 

Not trying to downplay BJJ effectiveness just like i wouldn't be downplaying a striker that annihilated a belligerent drunk im just saying not the best example of a self defense scenario.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Exactly what I've had to do with several of my belligerent friends when they were pill popping drunk idiots (3 different occasions from two of my close friends that also studied judo and or ShootFighting) when I was in my mid 20's. Except i didn't choke them out I just pinned them face down while having a typical cop wrist lock.
> 
> I'm just saying that its not super impressive to be able to manhandle a belligerent drunk people when you have martial arts experience especially if you are a competitive martial artist.
> 
> Did he use BJJ correctly in that scenario yes but it's still not super impressive to use this as a self defense scenario. You can see most of his friends that were with him and including himself really didn't see the drunk guy as a super threatening opponent.
> 
> Not trying to downplay BJJ effectiveness just like i wouldn't be downplaying a striker that annihilated a belligerent drunk im just saying not the best example of a self defense scenario.




That is self defence though. When people claim proven in the streets. What are they claiming? A bellegerant drunk or fighting off ten men in a death match. There is no standard.

Which is why this stuff needs to be tested in the gym and not by stories and ridiculous hypothetical.

OK let's try this.

A triangle choke does not work if an extra person comes in and sniper hits the person while he is doing it. I mean I will put that as legitimate anti grapple. Defence from triangle. Have extra guy there ready to jump.

But I am pretty well willing to say that is a technique that would fend of an eye gouge or chain punching or pretty much any defence you are trying to pull off.

This is actually a proven method. It is not called street. It is called having a bodyguard.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'll say it.  And I'll clarify so that there's no confusion;  BJJ, a_s taught within a sport context i_s no good (sub-optimal) for street fighting or self defense.  That's why Royce no longer gets invited to teach at the regional training center.  The HL coordinator that was infatuated with the flavor-of-the-month, yet had no personal, practical experience in the field is gone and so is Gracie.  People started realizing, 'hey this is some cool stuff...but we can't actually use it in the field'.
> 
> Some will probably take this as a slam on BJJ.  But it isn't.  BJJ has some elements, that aren't designed for the sport venue that are quite practical for self defense.  But the typical sport variety is sub-optimal and in fact detrimental.  Sport BJJ has the luxury of taking an opponent to the ground and looking for the opportunity to get the submission.  In a self defense situation, you don't have that luxury.  Being on the ground/staying on the ground is fool hardy at best.  Looking to get a submission on an attacker while on the ground means you're not using better methods to gain your feet and scan your surroundings for additional threats.  The video offered in the sparring thread proves this point quite clearly.  The guy on the ground was oblivious to his surroundings and was dialed in on getting a triangle choke rather than regaining his feet.  Neither is a sound tactic for self defense.  As I mentioned, change just one factor and the outcome is different i.e. the guy on top has a buddy in the crowd that kicks the guy on the bottom to sleep.
> 
> Does this mean BJJ is stupid or useless?  No, it does not.  It is quite useful in the venue for which the sport version was designed.  But too many people confuse one methodology with the wrong venue.  I'd rather see someone using sound BJJ strategies and tactics in a real fight than the sport stuff.  What would be a good example of this?  If you're on top of someone, or get on top of someone during a scuffle, digging your elbow into their inner thigh or groin in order to facilitate the opportunity to regain a standing position.  Or using the elbow or forearm to strike into the groin in order to attempt to incapacitate/immobilize (even temporarily) the person so that you can regain your feet.  In this way you can scan the immediate area for additional threats, perhaps facilitate escaping the situation, obtaining an improvised weapon, calling/signaling for help etc.  All useful tactics in a self defense situation.




Which explains this.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H7vke9rltfE

Now don't think I am bashing cops. The training they do is great for its venue like issuing speeding fines. but if you want to be able to hold a guy you really have to know how to wrestle.


----------



## drop bear

The bjj anti grapple.

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

And pretty much if you have the numbers and go in hard you have a pretty good success rate.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

I alway find these threads where it involves something with TMA & Grappling  entertaining. 

Like i said in a previous post the video just isn't the BEST example of how BJJ can be a great system of self defense. 

Check out this video on YouTube:






Check out this video on YouTube:







Sent from my iPhone

Personally id feel these are better examples of what grappling can do for you in a self defense scenario since its not a pro fighter man handling a drunk. 

Does grappling work for self defense yes. 

As a grappler and a TMA guy would I want to be rolling around on the ground in those videos not really. 

My reasons would be because both videos has multiple people (potential threats) around them and I would say the white guy has what resembles  a knife in his belt on the second video. 

But did grappling work well in those videos you better believe it but I wouldn't want to put my self in those positions.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I alway find these threads where it involves something with TMA & Grappling  entertaining.
> 
> Like i said in a previous post the video just isn't the BEST example of how BJJ can be a great system of self defense.
> 
> Check out this video on YouTube:
> 
> Guy Got Jiu-Jitsu Triangle In Street Fight - YouTube
> 
> Check out this video on YouTube:
> 
> Street fight with brazilian jiu jitsu moves and more! - YouTube
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Personally id feel these are better examples of what grappling can do for you in a self defense scenario since its not a pro fighter man handling a drunk.
> 
> Does grappling work for self defense yes.
> 
> As a grappler and a TMA guy would I want to be rolling around on the ground in those videos not really.
> 
> My reasons would be because both videos has multiple people (potential threats) around them and I would say the white guy has what resembles  a knife in his belt on the second video.
> 
> But did grappling work well in those videos you better believe it but I wouldn't want to put my self in those positions.




Second video shows that jumping in as the third man is risky because of the fourth man who gets you. Which is why these dogmatic rules of what happens in the street don't always reflect what happens in the street.

You are always vulnerable to that extra guy.

But OK do you think in the second video the blond guy should have pulled the knife?


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

drop bear said:


> Second video shows that jumping in as the third man is risky because of the fourth man who gets you. Which is why these dogmatic rules of what happens in the street don't always reflect what happens in the street.
> 
> You are always vulnerable to that extra guy.
> 
> But OK do you think in the second video the blond guy should have pulled the knife?



I just used those videos to show that BJJ is effective and that those videos show off BJJ capabilities a bit better then the pro fighter man handling the drunk guy. 

It also shows that the ground is a very dangerous place to be with all the random people around them and that even in the second video could have easily turned in to a knifing if the white guy started to get dominated. 

No I don't think the blond guy should have pulled a knife im just pointing out that it was there and that either person could have easily used grabbed it and used it while grappling.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I just used those videos to show that BJJ is effective and that those videos show off BJJ capabilities a bit better then the pro fighter man handling the drunk guy.
> 
> It also shows that the ground is a very dangerous place to be with all the random people around them and that even in the second video could have easily turned in to a knifing if the white guy started to get dominated.
> 
> No I don't think the blond guy should have pulled a knife im just pointing out that it was there and that either person could have easily used grabbed it and used it while grappling.




You don't think you are being too specific there?

A fight is dangerous with the random people and could have ended with a knifing at almost any stage. 

You are playing a risk vs reward game. On the ground is more vulnerable to the environment and outside attack vs maybe being in a better position and ending the fight quicker with less risk.

That debate would be situational rather than system based debate.

(I don't mean situational like the street. There is no the street. There are a lot of specific circumstances that may require you to problem solve on the fly.)


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

drop bear said:


> You don't think you are being too specific there?
> 
> A fight is dangerous with the random people and could have ended with a knifing at almost any stage.
> 
> You are playing a risk vs reward game. On the ground is more vulnerable to the environment and outside attack vs maybe being in a better position and ending the fight quicker with less risk.
> 
> That debate would be situational rather than system based debate.
> 
> (I don't mean situational like the street. There is no the street. There are a lot of specific circumstances that may require you to problem solve on the fly.)



Not being too specific I guess just being too observant & opinionated. 

With my background there's a high probability that I would take a person down to the ground and go for a ground and pound or submission. 

In a street scenario the ground is the last place I personally want to be due to lack of mobility of escaping weapon and multiple opponents attacks or having the ground used as a striking object as well. 

I'm not saying grappling arts can't be used as self defense arts but personally don't understand why it's such a hard ideal for people to realize why its not good positioning to go to the ground rather then keep it standing up where you can still strike, clinch, lock and throw people to the ground then either stomp kick or take evasive actions.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

ST1Doppelganger said:


> With my background there's a high probability that I would take a person down to the ground and go for a ground and pound or submission.



Sorry left out in the ring there would be a high probability id use this strategy.


----------



## Steve

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Not being too specific I guess just being too observant & opinionated.
> 
> With my background there's a high probability that I would take a person down to the ground and go for a ground and pound or submission.
> 
> In a street scenario the ground is the last place I personally want to be due to lack of mobility of escaping weapon and multiple opponents attacks or having the ground used as a striking object as well.
> 
> I'm not saying grappling arts can't be used as self defense arts but personally don't understand why it's such a hard ideal for people to realize why its not good positioning to go to the ground rather then keep it standing up where you can still strike, clinch, lock and throw people to the ground then either stomp kick or take evasive actions.



It's been said about a dozen times already that it's easy to see why staying on your feet is preferable to being on the ground.  

And it's also been said about a dozen times that you don't always have a choice.   

Here's a summary of the conversation so far:
Person a: "I will stay on my feet." 
B: "Yeah, but what if you can't."   
A: "But, I will."  
B: "Yeah.  But, worst case, the bad guy or guys get you on the ground.  How are you going to defend yourself?" 
A: "They won't.... But if they do, I'll stand back up, because I'm badass like that.  Why can't you accept that the ground isn't a good idea?"  
B: "What? Who said that?  Of course it is.  But what if you're under mount getting beat up?""
C: "Besides, my style is impervious to takedowns."  
B: "you mean like this video?"  
C:  "yeah.  Isn't it awesome?"
B: "no.  It's really not."
A: " hey stop bashing his art!"

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> It's been said about a dozen times already that it's easy to see why staying on your feet is preferable to being on the ground.
> 
> And it's also been said about a dozen times that you don't always have a choice.
> 
> Here's a summary of the conversation so far:
> Person a: "I will stay on my feet."
> B: "Yeah, but what if you can't."
> A: "But, I will."
> B: "Yeah.  But, worst case, the bad guy or guys get you on the ground.  How are you going to defend yourself?"
> A: "They won't.... But if they do, I'll stand back up, because I'm badass like that.  Why can't you accept that the ground isn't a good idea?"
> B: "What? Who said that?  Of course it is.  But what if you're under mount getting beat up?""
> C: "Besides, my style is impervious to takedowns."
> B: "you mean like this video?"
> C:  "yeah.  Isn't it awesome?"
> B: "no.  It's really not."
> A: " hey stop bashing his art!"


Perhaps we should add a little bit of honesty. 

Person A: "I will try stay on my feet." 
B: "Yeah, but what if you can't." 
A: "Well if I do get taken to the ground I will try to regain my feet as soon as I can." 
B: "Yeah. But, worst case, the bad guy or guys get you on the ground. How are you going to defend yourself?" 
A: "They might, and if they do I'll hope my training will enable me to defend myself until I can get back up. Why can't you accept that the ground isn't a good idea?"  (*Good Question* )
B: "What? Who said that? Of course it is. But what if you're under mount getting beat up?" 
A:  "I've trained to escape the mount from people with moderate grappling skill."
C: "Besides, my style is impervious to takedowns." (*Really? I'm not sure anyone claimed that!*  )
B: "you mean like this video?" 
C: "yeah. Isn't it awesome?" (*Really? Did anyone say that?*)
B: "no. It's really not."
A: "Hey stop bashing this art!" (*I think that is the only valuable thing you have put in your entire post ... well done!*)


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Steve said:


> It's been said about a dozen times already that it's easy to see why staying on your feet is preferable to being on the ground.
> 
> And it's also been said about a dozen times that you don't always have a choice.
> 
> Here's a summary of the conversation so far:
> Person a: "I will stay on my feet."
> B: "Yeah, but what if you can't."
> A: "But, I will."
> B: "Yeah.  But, worst case, the bad guy or guys get you on the ground.  How are you going to defend yourself?"
> A: "They won't.... But if they do, I'll stand back up, because I'm badass like that.  Why can't you accept that the ground isn't a good idea?"
> B: "What? Who said that?  Of course it is.  But what if you're under mount getting beat up?""
> C: "Besides, my style is impervious to takedowns."
> B: "you mean like this video?"
> C:  "yeah.  Isn't it awesome?"
> B: "no.  It's really not."
> A: " hey stop bashing his art!"
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I'm not bashing his art I actually started with ShootFighting and then Judo and BJJ then went to traditional Kung fu and now aikido. 

I just had to comment on what I thought in the repost of the pro fighter taking on the belligerent drunk and then post some videos of a more realistic grappling street fights and then the risks of it. 

I guess I could be wrong and the possibility of weapons, multiple opponents, getting bashed against the ground and lack of mobility are not just as big of a risk if not more of a risk when your grappling compared to standing while in a street altercation. 

I just have been responding to the questions that my post #400 had started.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Not being too specific I guess just being too observant & opinionated.
> 
> With my background there's a high probability that I would take a person down to the ground and go for a ground and pound or submission.
> 
> In a street scenario the ground is the last place I personally want to be due to lack of mobility of escaping weapon and multiple opponents attacks or having the ground used as a striking object as well.
> 
> I'm not saying grappling arts can't be used as self defense arts but personally don't understand why it's such a hard ideal for people to realize why its not good positioning to go to the ground rather then keep it standing up where you can still strike, clinch, lock and throw people to the ground then either stomp kick or take evasive actions.



Because they can strike,clinch, lock and throw you to the ground and stomp you as well. You are giving up a dominant position to fight from a fifty/fifty.

You are giving them more chance to win.

Arnt you concerned all this standing up will get you knocked out and left vulnerable to multiple attackers?


----------



## drop bear

By the way anti grapple.

Guard pass.
Side control.
Knee ride .
Stand up.

Probably the simplest and most direct route.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> By the way anti grapple.
> 
> Guard pass.
> Side control.
> Knee ride .
> Stand up.
> 
> Probably the simplest and most direct route.


I like to start it from:

- avoid clinch (don't let your opponent to get clinch on you),
- counter clinch (take advantage on your opponent's clinch and apply joint locking on him),
- throw resistance (remain balance and body structure, ...),
- counter throw (take your opponent down instead),
- ...

This is more aggressive way of thinking. If you try to take me down, I will take advantage on your take down commitment, apply take down counter, and take you down instead. Of course, when you think this way, the term "anti-grappling" will have no meaning.

May be "avoid clinch" should be the highest priority of "anti-grappling".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When a guy tries to pull down a girls' pants, will that girl 

1. resist as hard as she can? or 
2. not resist at all? or 
3. help that guy to pull her pants off? or
4. try to take the guy's pants off instead?

When your opponent tries to take you down, will you 

1. resist as hard as you can? or 
2. not resist at all? or 
3. help your opponent and go down with him? or
4. use "pull guard", "jump guard" to drag your opponent down?

In so many pages of "anti-grappling" discussion, the issue of "take down resistance" has not be discussed much. Why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dup, deleted.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> OK. If you have been knocked over you are not trying to take them down with you?



No because then it would be harder to get back up.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Actually it is. Ground fighting is an effective form of self defense. This has been demonstrated numerous times in many threads.



Knowing how to defend yourself should you find yourself on the ground is wise, purposely looking to fight on the ground is not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RTKDCMB said:


> Knowing how to defend yourself should you find yourself on the ground is wise, purposely looking to fight on the ground is not.


That's what I have said.

When a guy tries to pull down a girls' pants, will that girl 

1. resist as hard as she can? or 
2. not resist at all? or 
3. help that guy to pull her pants off? or
4. try to take the guy's pants off instead?

There is a difference between 

- try not to,
- don't care one way or another,
- love to.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Kong Soo Do said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be intent on making sport training the best thing for self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that. Where are you pulling this from?
Click to expand...


From the general tone of most of your posts on the subject.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Knowing how to defend yourself should you find yourself on the ground is wise, purposely looking to fight on the ground is not.



Well given your answers to various ground situations, you should certainly take your own advice. 

Also there are times where it is wise to take a fight to the ground.



RTKDCMB said:


> From the general tone of most of your posts on the subject.



Which simply shows that you're not paying attention.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Well given your answers to various ground situations, you should certainly take your own advice.



Given your answers on everything else it's no wonder you always end up on the ground.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Given your answers on everything else it's no wonder you always end up on the ground.



The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.

The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.
> 
> The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.



I have ended up on the ground on two occasions in real self defense situations and both times I got up fast enough on my own terms.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Well why isn't it? Super drunk people are dangerous as well. Especially super drunk people who are bigger than you are and want to cave your face in.
> 
> Ryan did a great job here. He consistently tried to talk the guy down and avoid a confrontation. When that didn't work, he restrained the guy without hurting him. When that didn't work he put him to sleep completely. All without seriously hurting the guy.



Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.

I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:

1. Ryan had superiority of numbers

2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills

3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence

4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation

There are probably more.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I have ended up on the ground on two occasions in real self defense situations and both times I got up fast enough on my own terms.



An anecdote that doesn't disprove my statement in the slightest.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.
> 
> The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.



Thats exactly my philosophy.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:



I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" SD situation.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

RTKDCMB said:


> Knowing how to defend yourself should you find yourself on the ground is wise, purposely looking to fight on the ground is not.



Very well summed up.

For the benefit of anyone reading this who is not yet convinced as to why certain strategies/tactics/techniques that you see in competition aren't ideal for real life self-defence situations in "the street" I think this video sums it up pretty well:


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to start it from:
> 
> - avoid clinch (don't let your opponent to get clinch on you),
> - counter clinch (take advantage on your opponent's clinch and apply joint locking on him),
> - throw resistance (remain balance and body structure, ...),
> - counter throw (take your opponent down instead),
> - ...
> 
> This is more aggressive way of thinking. If you try to take me down, I will take advantage on your take down commitment, apply take down counter, and take you down instead. Of course, when you think this way, the term "anti-grappling" will have no meaning.
> 
> May be "avoid clinch" should be the highest priority of "anti-grappling".



Well said but unfortunately allot of traditional  Martial Artist leave out the range of clinch in their live practice and tend to be taken down by a good takedown practitioner. 

The whole term anti-grappling dosent make since to me anyways since like you said they should be concentrating their time on how to avoid being taken down if they don't want to be on the ground. 

With out training the grappling positions most of this anti-grappling stuff isn't applicable since the practitioner training the anti grappling techniques won't have the fundamental knowledge of how to reverse a less dominant position and maintain a dominant position.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" SD situation.



That's why I used the quotation marks.

Let me put it another way, is it really self-defence? The dude may have threatened him and acted aggressively, but I didn't see him attack Ryan. If Ryan could have kept it verbal for a few more minutes the cops would have turned up and dealt with the guy for him. But then he may not have got a free meal out of it.

Nice way to ignore all the other points I made btw


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> An anecdote that doesn't disprove my statement in the slightest.



Well since your statement was unfounded in the first place it doesn't matter if my "anecdote" disproves it or not.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> That's why I used the quotation marks.
> 
> Let me put it another way, is it really self-defence? The dude may have threatened him and acted aggressively, but I didn't see him attack Ryan. If Ryan could have kept it verbal for a few more minutes the cops would have turned up and dealt with the guy for him. But then he may not have got a free meal out of it.



Did we watch the same video? The guy was in Ryan's face and the cops didn't arrive for another several minutes.

Sure Ryan could have waited for the guy to slug him in the face, but why would you do that?



> Nice way to ignore all the other points I made btw



Your points were pretty irrelevant.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.
> 
> I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Ryan had superiority of numbers
> 
> 2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills
> 
> 3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence
> 
> 4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation
> 
> There are probably more.
> 
> I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.



I agree with most everything you said.  I will differ on a point though.  I think the first time this Ryan took him to the ground was justified.  The drunk was in his face, hands up and he was issuing threats.  The second time, not so much.  Ryan took him from behind, which is not self defense (though if the drunk had been actively attacking someone it he would have been justified).  No one has the right to get in your face while issuing threats and waving their hands in a hostile manner.  This goes back to ability and intent.  The second time though was verbal and pretty iffy.

As you mention, a good example of a martial art that can control an attacker/aggressor without physical blows.  Many arts have this type of training.  For the most part, this Ryan guy did show excellent restraint and several people were trying to diffuse the situation.  Unfortunately, the other guy just wasn't having any of it. 

One thing to note; many would consider, from a legal standpoint, a choke to be deadly force.  This needs to be considered along with other ways of defense i.e. striking the throat, hitting into the temple, gouging the eye(s) etc.  The definition of deadly force may vary but is along the lines of something that has the potential of causing death and/or great bodily harm.  A choke falls into this category.  The second time Ryan took him to the ground and choked him out really wasn't at a deadly force response level i.e. he may have difficulty in a court of law justifying his actions.  Indeed, he even risks the possibility of arrest.  This is a general statement and just something to consider.  What is 'okay' in the gym maybe viewed as 'not okay' in a court of law.  It will all boil down to what is viewed as reasonable by citizens who may or may not be martial artists themselves (read the jury).  Just tossing this out for consideration of the reader.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Did we watch the same video? The guy was in Ryan's face and the cops didn't arrive for another several minutes.
> 
> Sure Ryan could have waited for the guy to slug him in the face, but why would you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> Your points were pretty irrelevant.



I guess we watched it with different eyes, you seem to think that the numbers and allegiances and intentions of the supporting cast are irrelevant whereas I and certainly some other people have a different opinion.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Kong Soo Do said:


> I agree with most everything you said.  I will differ on a point though.  I think the first time this Ryan took him to the ground was justified.  The drunk was in his face, hands up and he was issuing threats.  The second time, not so much.  Ryan took him from behind, which is not self defense (though if the drunk had been actively attacking someone it he would have been justified).  No one has the right to get in your face while issuing threats and waving their hands in a hostile manner.  This goes back to ability and intent.  The second time though was verbal and pretty iffy.



Funnily enough I was just thinking the same after reading Hanzou's reply regarding waiting to be punched in the face, so no need to differ on that point, it's fair imo.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Funnily enough I was just thinking the same after reading Hanzou's reply regarding waiting to be punched in the face, so no need to differ on that point, it's fair imo.



Gotcha 

You do have a point with the participants involved.  For the most part, the drunk's buddy and Ryan's buddies were trying to diffuse the situation.  That's excellent.  The situation of course changes if any of those factors change.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.
> 
> I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Ryan had superiority of numbers
> 
> 2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills
> 
> 3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence
> 
> 4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation
> 
> There are probably more.
> 
> I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.




This comes back to my statement. There is no the street. The set of factors at that time warranted taking the guy to the ground. A different set of factors may not.

I don't understand why people are trying to change what actually happened.

Here is the thing. I have friends.When I go out I am probably out with them. It is not uncommon for that situation to occur.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Very well summed up.
> 
> For the benefit of anyone reading this who is not yet convinced as to why certain strategies/tactics/techniques that you see in competition aren't ideal for real life self-defence situations in "the street" I think this video sums it up pretty well:



So are we going to start a new thread on defending an attack you don't see coming? Because short of magic. I don't really see a solution.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

drop bear said:


> This comes back to my statement. There is no the street. The set of factors at that time warranted taking the guy to the ground. A different set of factors may not.
> 
> I don't understand why people are trying to change what actually happened.
> 
> Here is the thing. I have friends.When I go out I am probably out with them. It is not uncommon for that situation to occur.



I don't think anyone is trying to change what happened, or say that Ryan's actions weren't mostly appropriate, but I thought it was important to acknowledge those factors that made it appropriate.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

drop bear said:


> So are we going to start a new thread on defending an attack you don't see coming? Because short of magic. I don't really see a solution.



lol no but if the people in those clips had made different choices then they may have seen them coming


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to start it from:
> 
> - avoid clinch (don't let your opponent to get clinch on you),
> - counter clinch (take advantage on your opponent's clinch and apply joint locking on him),
> - throw resistance (remain balance and body structure, ...),
> - counter throw (take your opponent down instead),
> - ...
> 
> This is more aggressive way of thinking. If you try to take me down, I will take advantage on your take down commitment, apply take down counter, and take you down instead. Of course, when you think this way, the term "anti-grappling" will have no meaning.
> 
> May be "avoid clinch" should be the highest priority of "anti-grappling".


Not swapping sides here but avoiding a clinch is not all that easy unless you do a lot of training to avoid it. Then you get an unexpected attack and you have a clinch anyway.  I would modify the statement to "try to avoid the clinch".  (Geoff Thompson has some very good 'fence' material if anyone is interested in that aspect of training.)

Second part I would say is almost impossible. If someone has you in a clinch it would not be easy to get a joint lock on them as in a clinch everything is locked in tight.

Third part, I agree totally but again it takes a lot of training to get to that level. We call it 'maintaining your centre'.

Fourth part, again not always an easy option especially if your opponent has some grappling experience. Counter throw certainly, but be prepared to be taken down at the same time. Rather than struggle to maintain your feet I would prefer to go to the ground with a knee or elbow to the neck etc. then regain my feet ASAP.

When you say "avoid clinch" as the priority I'm in agreement on one hand and struggling on the other. In a SD situation I firstly want to get away, therefore avoid clinch. If I am committed to fight, my training is to clinch, on my terms, to gain control.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

RTKDCMB said:


> Originally Posted by *drop bear*
> OK. If you have been knocked over you are not trying to take them down with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because then it would be harder to get back up.
Click to expand...

I'm with mostly with *drop bear* here. If I'm being taken to the ground I want my primary opponent with me so I can still have control. If I am knocked down without the ability to control my opponent it gets more difficult as I am more vulnerable to attack while regaining my feet, which of course is why we train specific ways to regain your feet.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.
> 
> The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.


OMG! Something I can agree with. You're not really trying. 



Hanzou said:


> An anecdote that doesn't disprove my statement in the slightest.


An anecdote that links in to the real world. Sometimes you will end up on the ground. I'm sure I remember you stating the 'fact' that most fights end up on the ground. The only difference is that you want to stay on the ground.



Hanzou said:


> I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" SD situation.


I'm feeling faint. That's two in a day.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to change what happened, or say that Ryan's actions weren't mostly appropriate, but I thought it was important to acknowledge those factors that made it appropriate.



Which comes down again to this basic idea that sometimes going to the ground is OK and sometimes it is ill advised. But that is not a the street situation but a case by case basis.

It is not really an argument you can just point at grappling.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I'm with mostly with *drop bear* here. If I'm being taken to the ground I want my primary opponent with me so I can still have control. If I am knocked down without the ability to control my opponent it gets more difficult as I am more vulnerable to attack while regaining my feet, which of course is why we train specific ways to regain your feet.
> :asian:



And I think for most people it will happen instinctively anyway as they fall they are grabbing for something.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Not swapping sides here but avoiding a clinch is not all that easy unless you do a lot of training to avoid it. Then you get an unexpected attack and you have a clinch anyway.  I would modify the statement to "try to avoid the clinch".  (Geoff Thompson has some very good 'fence' material if anyone is interested in that aspect of training.)
> 
> Second part I would say is almost impossible. If someone has you in a clinch it would not be easy to get a joint lock on them as in a clinch everything is locked in tight.
> 
> Third part, I agree totally but again it takes a lot of training to get to that level. We call it 'maintaining your centre'.
> 
> Fourth part, again not always an easy option especially if your opponent has some grappling experience. Counter throw certainly, but be prepared to be taken down at the same time. Rather than struggle to maintain your feet I would prefer to go to the ground with a knee or elbow to the neck etc. then regain my feet ASAP.
> 
> When you say "avoid clinch" as the priority I'm in agreement on one hand and struggling on the other. In a SD situation I firstly want to get away, therefore avoid clinch. If I am committed to fight, my training is to clinch, on my terms, to gain control.
> :asian:



I don't think a fence is all that good against the collar tie by the way. But I am going to play with it.


Head control and hand fighting would be wrestling's anti grapple.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys9tmw3TIEU


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> And I think for most people it will happen instinctively anyway as they fall they are grabbing for something.


You are spot on with this. As they fall they will grab for support. Coming from Aikido, I train, and teach, to totally relax as they try to grab. When they find no support they generally let go to use their hands/arms to cushion their fall. Normally they will try to grab your arms and most times they will let go. The times they are more likely to pull you down are if they can grab your clothing or neck.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> I don't think a fence is all that good against the collar tie by the way. But I am going to play with it.
> 
> 
> Head control and hand fighting would be wrestling's anti grapple.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys9tmw3TIEU


The collar tie is the bread and butter of Krav. Once you have that there is no way the 'fence' will protect you. But it's interesting. In your video the yellow guy is alternating between the fence and a collar tie. The fence protects you against someone attacking you when you don't really want to engage. The collar tie is a great alternate way of controlling your opponent when he attacks you and you want to fight.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> The collar tie is the bread and butter of Krav. Once you have that there is no way the 'fence' will protect you. But it's interesting. In your video the yellow guy is alternating between the fence and a collar tie. The fence protects you against someone attacking you when you don't really want to engage. The collar tie is a great alternate way of controlling your opponent when he attacks you and you want to fight.
> :asian:




Yeah the fence resembles that basic wrestling stance. It just depends how far you want to go into the game side of head control and hand fighting. 

For me the more I investigate it the more benefit I get.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Yeah the fence resembles that basic wrestling stance. It just depends how far you want to go into the game side of head control and hand fighting.
> 
> For me the more I investigate it the more benefit I get.


From my point of view having that collar tie protects you from a head butt while you still have the head butt as an option, but from that position we are normally driving the knee in to groin, abdomen, chest etc. to bend him over. Once he is bent over to protect from the knee we are smashing the back of the neck with the forearm. For me it is a really high value technique. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> From my point of view having that collar tie protects you from a head butt while you still have the head butt as an option, but from that position we are normally driving the knee in to groin, abdomen, chest etc. to bend him over. Once he is bent over to protect from the knee we are smashing the back of the neck with the forearm. For me it is a really high value technique.
> :asian:



Well ditto pretty much. Apart from a few semantic differences.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> From my point of view having that collar tie protects you from a head butt while you still have the head butt as an option, but from that position we are normally driving the knee in to groin, abdomen, chest etc. to bend him over. Once he is bent over to protect from the knee we are smashing the back of the neck with the forearm. For me it is a really high value technique.
> :asian:


I like to use one arm to control my opponent's head and use another arm to control one of his arms. I don't like double neck tie and use both of my arms to control my opponent's head. If my opponent wraps his arms around my double neck tie, I'll be in trouble.







Also if I have single neck tie with arm wrap, I want to take down my opponent right at that moment. My knee strike may give him a chance to get hold of my leg. I don't like to take that chance.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to use one arm to control my opponent's head and use another arm to control one of his arms. I don't like double neck tie and use both of my arms to control my opponent's head. If my opponent wraps his arms around my double neck tie, I'll be in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if I have single neck tie with arm wrap, I want to take down my opponent right at that moment. My knee strike may give him a chance to get hold of my leg. I don't like to take that chance.


We do a little with the double neck tie in karate because it is part if the bunkai. In Krav the single neck tie is on the other side of the neck from your picture. In other words the right arm would be where the left arm is in this picture. That ties him up, puts you off his line and protects you from the head butt. Done like that he has no chance to grab the leg and if he does reach down you just go for the neck. Even with your leg he can't lift it as he would be trying to lift both of us.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> We do a little with the double neck tie in karate because it is part if the bunkai. In Krav the single neck tie is on the other side of the neck from your picture. In other words the right arm would be where the left arm is in this picture. That ties him up, puts you off his line and protects you from the head butt. Done like that he has no chance to grab the leg and if he does reach down you just go for the neck. Even with your leg he can't lift it as he would be trying to lift both of us.
> :asian:




You would need the over hook.

So over hook same head control as the Thai clinch. Get your forehead into their temple and grind it. It is increadably painfull.

You can use it as a restraint and control if you want.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> You would need the over hook.
> 
> So over hook same head control as the Thai clinch. Get your forehead into their temple and grind it. It is increadably painfull.
> 
> You can use it as a restraint and control if you want.


Is this what you mean? The bit I am describing is about 0:50 on this clip.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brYgHlH6h0s


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> I'm with mostly with *drop bear* here. If I'm being taken to the ground I want my primary opponent with me so I can still have control. If I am knocked down without the ability to control my opponent it gets more difficult as I am more vulnerable to attack while regaining my feet, which of course is why we train specific ways to regain your feet.
> :asian:



On both occasions I did not have much of a choice either way. The first time I was caught by surprise with a front kick and two punches and I fired out a kick to the knee and then stood up and he seemed to disappear into thin air. The second time we were into the wrestling (so to speak) phase of the fight and I ended up on my back and he tried to get on top of me and I used 3 front thrust kicks (up kicks) to prevent him getting on top and got to one knee before he got close again. Then I did 2 uppercuts from the half kneeling position and then a knee to the ribs as I stood up.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Is this what you mean? The bit I am describing is about 0:50 on this clip.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brYgHlH6h0s




No my one is a bit nastier.keep the standard tie on the head. It is just a tweek we use.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> OMG! Something I can agree with. You're not really trying.
> I'm feeling faint. That's two in a day.


I think you're finally starting to understand.  That's good to see, K-man.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think you're finally starting to understand.  That's good to see, K-man.


Mate, as you have been quick to pick up, I am a slow learner.


----------



## Hanzou

A group of Kung Fu practitioners discuss how to stop the takedown, with mixed results;


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> A group of Kung Fu practitioners discuss how to stop the takedown, with mixed results;



Lol. Sprawl cross face over hook.

Ftw.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*It is always good to see people addressing how to defend against a takedown*.  That is very important.
This video could have been so much better if they had a practitioner on their who actually was a grappler
and could show them how someone who knows what they are doing sets up their takedown.  This comes back
to what several have pointed out please work with someone who has extensive grappling experience so that
they can show you nuances to pick up for your grappling defense.

The half sprawl can work but it needs to be applied with in a heavier manner.  Otherwise an experienced grappler
will really drive through it and take you down or switch mid stream to a double leg with a leg wrap and yet again 
you are taken down.

As everyone who does grapple here has mentioned time and again having the sprawl in your arsenal of defense
against a double, single leg takedown is essential.  Really getting those legs back far, pushing your pelvis down and
getting your biceps on their shoulder on the inside is very, very important.  Otherwise an experienced takedown 
artist will just drive through and you will be on your back!


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> A group of Kung Fu practitioners discuss how to stop the takedown, with mixed results;



Thanks, quite good that I thought.

When you say mixed results, I presume you mean some good and some bad ideas/demos. Which were the poorer aspects from your POV?

Obviously pulling the knife was the best one, but not too realistic for a lot of us law abiding citizens!


----------



## jezr74

I have to say it helps reading up on the grappling terms, in particular Hooks - getting control of the legs, Sweep - reversing your position.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> A group of Kung Fu practitioners discuss how to stop the takedown, with mixed results;



There is a such think as "too late to do anything". The "fire-men's carry" is another example.







There are 3 stages to deal with a throw:

1. prevent it from happening - you don't have to be a good grappler.
2. deal with it when it happens - you have to be an average grappler.
3. take advantage when it happens - you have to be a good grappler.

For example, when your opponent shoots at your double legs, you can 

- spin left leg back,
- use right over hook to hook under his left shoulder,
- use right leg to lift/spring his left leg, and
- throw him down toward your left.

In order to do so, you have to be very good in your own grappling skill.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Perhaps we should add a little bit of honesty.


really?  That's the play?  You're honest and I'm not?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> really?  That's the play?  You're honest and I'm not?


Let's just say your post was laced with hyperbole and poetic licence.


----------



## drop bear

Wrestling over hook. To stand up. For a single leg defence.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hXffSBIyj-Q


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Thanks, quite good that I thought.
> 
> When you say mixed results, I presume you mean some good and some bad ideas/demos. Which were the poorer aspects from your POV?
> 
> Obviously pulling the knife was the best one, but not too realistic for a lot of us law abiding citizens!



The main bad ideas is the over-reliance on attempting to stop a takedown with forearms, elbows, or hand techniques in general. Can they work? Sure they can, but usually it requires you to be significantly stronger than the person attempting the takedown, and it requires pretty good timing in general. This degrades those concepts into the low percentage category. I think there was one part early in the video where Izzo was demonstrating a takedown in slow-motion, and his partner was able to place his forearm underneath his head and push upwards, thus supposedly causing Izzo's entire upper body to arch upwards?

Absolute nonsense.

The demonstrations were also pretty unrealistic. For example, they don't take into account chain grappling. Chain Grappling is when someone switches the takedown/throw on you and immediately goes to an alternate takedown/throw. You may think that only expert grapplers can do this, but I've seen situations where someone is going for a tackle, the person blocks them or stops them, and then the person immediately wraps them up and body slams them. It's not as uncommon as people think.

They also still have this bizarre concept that someone is going to take you down with some sloppy DLT variation every single time. I still argue that the clinch takedown is the most common takedown in fighting, and I have yet to see any of these anti-grappling videos tackle it. Bjj alone has several clinch-based takedowns because they're so easy and practical to do on someone.

This is why Brian's earlier post is right on the money. If you're going to do this stuff, get an expert grappler on there to show you how a grappler would do things. Hell, even get grapplers from each style to show you how they do things. There's no reason why Izzo couldn't get a Judoka, a Wrestler, a Sambo guy, a Jiujiteiro, and/or other grapplers together to do this with him. If you're not a grappler, you can't imitate how a grappler thinks or moves no matter how hard you try, so you end up just wasting your time.


----------



## drop bear

Double under hooks defence.

Forearm in throat.
Wizzer.
Re guard.


----------



## Hanzou

Toshindo guard pass;






Yet another example of attempting to counter something you don't understand.

I think the part that got me the most was where the students OO'd and Ahh'd at that technique. I wonder what happens when they realize it doesn't work. :lol:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Toshindo guard pass;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of attempting to counter something you don't understand.
> 
> I think the part that got me the most was where the students OO'd and Ahh'd at that technique. I wonder what happens when they realize it doesn't work. :lol:


OK, you don't like it. Instead of rubbishing it perhaps you could explain the pitfalls of such a technique.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Toshindo guard pass;
> Yet another example of attempting to counter something you don't understand.
> 
> I think the part that got me the most was where the students OO'd and Ahh'd at that technique. I wonder what happens when they realize it doesn't work. :lol:


I find this interesting.
Just two weeks ago I was at a seminar with Rodrigo Menderios (BJJ Revolution), Carlson Gracie Team and we were working this guard pass to an ankle lock. We also worked a couple of counters to it also.

Now Hayes' hand position on the ground and posture is questionable and I disagree with the set up but non the less we worked this pass at a highly respectable BJJ instructors seminar.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> OK, you don't like it. Instead of rubbishing it perhaps you could explain the pitfalls of such a technique.



Howabout I let some Ninjas explain it for me?


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> I find this interesting.
> Just two weeks ago I was at a seminar with Rodrigo Menderios (BJJ Revolution), Carlson Gracie Team and we were working this guard pass to an ankle lock. We also worked a couple of counters to it also.
> 
> Now Hayes' hand position on the ground and posture is questionable and I disagree with the set up but non the less we worked this pass at a highly respectable BJJ instructors seminar.



If the set up is different, it's not the same guard pass.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> If the set up is different, it's not the same guard pass.



Then why did you use the 'ninjas' to explain your disagreement. Their set up position was not the same as Hayes.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Then why did you use the 'ninjas' to explain your disagreement. Their set up position was not the same as Hayes.



The "ninjas" show everything that is wrong with the demonstration, beginning with Hayes' posture, which is just ripe for sweeps, chokes, and locks. Beyond that, Hayes' passing technique places you in a worse position than its supposedly getting you out of. Leaning back in a closed guard is going to cause your opponent to rise up with you by default. If the proper grips are in place, it will cause the person performing the guard to rise up with you rapidly, giving them the perfect momentum to take a top position.

Hilariously, you see Hayes' students do exactly that while they're attempting the technique, only to purposely place themselves back on the mat in order for their partner to perform the roll. You're practically giving me the mounted position, and maybe even your back if you're dumb enough to keep rolling. A no-stripe white belt would eat that up like candy.

The icing on the cake though, is the guy on the bottom comically grimacing from a knee to his butt from Hayes. He writhes and squirms in agony as if that move would actually put you in excruciating pain. 

It's nonsense.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> The "ninjas" show everything that is wrong with the demonstration, beginning with Hayes' posture, which is just ripe for sweeps, chokes, and locks. Beyond that, Hayes' passing technique places you in a worse position than its supposedly getting you out of. Leaning back in a closed guard is going to cause your opponent to rise up with you by default. If the proper grips are in place, it will cause the person performing the guard to rise up with you rapidly, giving them the perfect momentum to take a top position.
> 
> Hilariously, you see Hayes' students do exactly that while they're attempting the technique, only to purposely place themselves back on the mat in order for their partner to perform the roll. You're practically giving me the mounted position, and maybe even your back if you're dumb enough to keep rolling. A no-stripe white belt would eat that up like candy.
> 
> The icing on the cake though, is the guy on the bottom comically grimacing from a knee to his butt from Hayes. He writhes and squirms in agony as if that move would actually put you in excruciating pain.
> 
> It's nonsense.


And your reply is nonsense. You bag the technique you bag the guy, you don't seem to be unable to explain the bits that cause the problem. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than you could explain it in simple terms. It would appear that the technique is valid if it was performed correctly. How do you perform it in a way it would work?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> And your reply is nonsense. You bag the technique you bag the guy, you don't seem to be unable to explain the bits that cause the problem. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than you could explain it in simple terms. It would appear that the technique is valid if it was performed correctly. How do you perform it in a way it would work?



The bits that cause the problem is the leaning back while in guard. Observe;





Notice how the guy in guard begins to go up with the person leaning backwards because of his legs and his grip? He purposely releases both, and returns to the mat. 

If they had been rolling, the guard player could have easily scrambled for mounted position, and the person attempting the lock would have helped him along the way. 

That's but one of several issues I have with the clip.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> OK, you don't like it. Instead of rubbishing it perhaps you could explain the pitfalls of such a technique.



You are sweeping him into mount. You roll on to your back. He rolls on to his knees. And you have just made your position worse.

Otherwise the minor technical issues of his hands being on the ground and his base being terrible.


And it is low percentage. There are leg locks that a sports player would know from guard because he has to have options. But not as a go to self defence move to teach ninjas.

And even from that lock. You can grab that ankle rolling him back over.

And you don't do leg locks like that. Pro tip. The toes go directly in the arm pit not behind. Then when you do an actual working leg lock they don't have the strength to pull out.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> I find this interesting.
> Just two weeks ago I was at a seminar with Rodrigo Menderios (BJJ Revolution), Carlson Gracie Team and we were working this guard pass to an ankle lock. We also worked a couple of counters to it also.
> 
> Now Hayes' hand position on the ground and posture is questionable and I disagree with the set up but non the less we worked this pass at a highly respectable BJJ instructors seminar.



That ankle lock? Not the one where you roll straight back.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> OK, you don't like it. Instead of rubbishing it perhaps you could explain the pitfalls of such a technique.





			
				Danny T said:
			
		

> I find this interesting.
> Just two weeks ago I was at a seminar with Rodrigo Menderios (BJJ Revolution), Carlson Gracie Team and we were working this guard pass to an ankle lock. We also worked a couple of counters to it also.
> 
> Now Hayes' hand position on the ground and posture is questionable and I disagree with the set up but non the less we worked this pass at a highly respectable BJJ instructors seminar.



I'll preface this by saying I have no desire to bash Steve Hayes or Toshindo. I'm acquainted with Steve and consider him to be an above average martial artist and instructor. I give him credit for trying to incorporate groundfighting into Toshindo.

That said, he is clearly has not spent time doing any sort of resisted groundfighting with competent training partners and it shows. My best guess is that he's watched some videos, attended some seminars, and then invented stuff based on experiments with compliant students. It's easy to think you've developed amazing technique when you never test it against someone who is honestly trying  to beat you.

To start with - Steve's posture, base, and hand position will get him swept or submitted in an instant by anyone with any experience. 

The knee strike to the butt is completely misguided. It will inflict no damage and guarantee that you get swept. 

The tactic of digging the elbow into the thigh _can _work against low-level grapplers if done with good base and posture (which he doesn't have). Punching from within the guard is a legitimate tactic, if done with good base and posture and understanding of the bottom person's likely tactics (which he doesn't have). 

The suggestions that the bottom person will be trying to crush your ribs or push you away with his hands indicates that he doesn't understand how the guard is used. 

There are legitimate techniques which superficially resemble this one - they stack or roll the bottom person into a position where his guard breaks open and you can move directly into a leg lock. I wouldn't say they are super high percentage, but they are valid techniques at the right moment. They depend on controlling the bottom person's hips in such a way that he can't adjust as you force his legs open. In this case, Steve had no control of the bottom person's hips. There is nothing preventing the bottom person from just riding up to mount when he lays back.

The whole thing relies on the bottom person doing pretty much the opposite of what he should do when someone is in his guard.


----------



## Hanzou

I would also like to note that I am also not bashing Hayes or Toshindo, simply the technique shown here. I am actually a fan of Hayes, and used to read his books when I was younger.

However, I think its important to remember that it is an instructor's responsibility to teach sound and reliable techniques to their students. Concocted half-baked techniques and not researching them properly is pretty irresponsible, and should be criticized accordingly. Not pressure-testing them against resisting partners is also irresponsible and ridiculous, because I seriously doubt that Hayes would have a hard time finding a Bjj person who wouldn't love to train with him.

There's nothing wrong with innovation, and applying your own spin on stuff, but make sure your technique is sound before you publish a video about it and make yourself (and your art) look silly.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

What Tony said.......

The big issue with Steve Hayes demo is that he doesn't control the hips and break open the guard before he moves into it.  In a nut shell that is the major flaw with the technique.  Break open the guard and you can attempt this but....... I do not like it that much as there are other ways to get an easier lock like a heel hook while staying upright and facing my oppoonent, etc.


----------



## Danny T

Well this is where there is some disagreement as to how the technique was shown by Hayes and shown by the ninjas. Hayes moved off line and turned to his left rolling back and on to his side. I agree he should move off line more and stayed postured up. On the turn his foot should be in on the opponent's chest to prevent the sit up. There are several fine tuning aspects but the gross motion is the same. Should he be instructing this to a bunch of students as being an authority? No. I have taught many things, still do, that I didn't completely understand but continued to work on it, refined it, and made it better and useable. So has everyone else who is an instructor, even some very high level authorities. When I do I preface it with this is something I learned and am still working on to understand it. 

Was at a Pedro Sauer seminar earlier this year where Professor Sauer was attempting to show a pass that he had been exposed to by one of his higher level Black Belts (was used successfully is several competitions he was in). After showing the pass a couple of times his student broke in saying something alone lines of; 'you need to push forward on his ankle first, move off center..., then complete the pass.'

My stating this is to show even high level instructors make mistakes during instructions and when rolling. Instead of just finding fault and belittling give information that would make the technique proper. Why is the criticization always vs instructors/instructions of other styles/systems but never vs those of the same systems the critic is from when it happens as well. We should be building up the martial arts and those who keep it alive rather than degrading. GJJ/BJJ is great and has some bad instructors as well. 

As students we should question everything and work to prove it, for ourselves. But to constantly find fault, criticize, and belittle helps no one.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Why is the criticization always vs instructors/instructions of other styles/systems but never vs those of the same systems the critic is from when it happens as well. We should be building up the martial arts and those who keep it alive rather than degrading. GJJ/BJJ is great and has some bad instructors as well.
> 
> As students we should question everything and work to prove it, for ourselves. But to constantly find fault, criticize, and belittle helps no one.



Why shouldn't we criticize, find fault, and belittle that which deserves those things? If you're going to attack the guard position by essentially saying that its a joke and its relatively easy to escape from/counter (when you know little about it), you're going to get called out for your mistake. Plain and simple.

The REAL tragedy in all of this is that Hayes could have produced a pretty cool technique if he had actually brought in a grappler to train this technique with. Imagine what Hayes could do if he brought in a Bjj black belt to help him develop Toshindo ground techniques? 

Both Toshindo and Bjj would benefit from that sharing of knowledge.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Why shouldn't we criticize, find fault, and belittle that which deserves those things?



There's a difference between constructive criticism of a technique or method and rubbishing them. One is helpful, the other is not.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> There's a difference between constructive criticism of a technique or method and rubbishing them. One is helpful, the other is not.



Except the video is coming from a position of authority, so constructive criticism is pointless. Toshindo isn't going to change that technique because of criticism, they think it works fine against someone putting you in the guard. Constructive criticism is what happens when you're putting together that technique, and refining it into a sound product. We're way passed that point now, so all we can do now is point out how wrong it is.-


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> There's a difference between constructive criticism of a technique or method and rubbishing them. One is helpful, the other is not.



The moral outrage that he is charging people for that and potentially sending people out in to the world that would try that?

Therefore rubbishing them with a clear reasoning might be the better choice in the long run. We can't train in an echo chamber it will stunt our growth.

I will quite often try stuff and often it is pretty stupid. The people who care whether my martial arts is good will be sure to tell me. It is not the worst thing to try and fail. But seriously you should know if you are failing.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Except the video is coming from a position of authority, so constructive criticism is pointless. Toshindo isn't going to change that technique because of criticism, they think it works fine against someone putting you in the guard. Constructive criticism is what happens when you're putting together that technique, and refining it into a sound product. We're way passed that point now, so all we can do now is point out how wrong it is.-



By this definition then when in the instance I wrote about Professor Sauer, the person of authority in his association, presented the technique his student should have criticized and belittled it rather than helped him refine it. Professor Sauer probably should have waited to present the technique until he had it down but didn't. Rather than belittle the technique or Professor Sauer the person who had a greater understanding of the it gave information to correct it or to make it better and usable by all. That is what you Sir don't do. You just criticize and present no information to allow for a greater understanding of what is wrong, why it is wrong and what would make it proper technique.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Danny T said:


> By this definition then when in the instance I wrote about Professor Sauer, the person of authority in his association, presented the technique his student should have criticized and belittled it rather than helped him refine it. Professor Sauer probably should have waited to present the technique until he had it down but didn't. Rather than belittle the technique or Professor Sauer the person who had a greater understanding of the it gave information to correct it or to make it better and usable by all. That is what you Sir don't do. You just criticize and present no information to allow for a greater understanding of what is wrong, why it is wrong and what would make it proper technique.



I can see a few differences in the situations here.

1) Professor Sauer is skilled and knowledgeable enough that I'm sure his original version of the technique had some useful validity to it, even if it was improved by  the refinements his student offered. Steve Hayes is skilled and knowledgeable in some areas, but everything he showed in that clip would get you in big trouble against even a blue belt in BJJ (or any other half-way experienced ground grappler).

2) Professor Sauer offered the technique knowing his student was there to correct any details he was missing and he was open to publically accepting that correction. Steve Hayes offered his technique without anyone to correct him on it. I've always gotten along fine with Steve, but I really doubt that if I were to write and tell him everything that needed fixing with his demonstration he would cheerfully pass on the correction to his students.

3) I wouldn't even worry about the demonstration if it was just one technique that I didn't agree with. Sometimes a skilled practitioner can make something work that I can't and make me reconsider my opinion on the move. The problem is that the whole of the demonstration makes it clear that he doesn't understand even the most fundamental aspects of the topic he's covering. That's just unnecessary. Steve is both smart and talented. If spent the time to actually learn the basics of groundfighting instead of assuming an expertise he doesn't have, he would probably pick them up much faster than most students do and he would certainly do an excellent job of being able to teach them.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> By this definition then when in the instance I wrote about Professor Sauer, the person of authority in his association, presented the technique his student should have criticized and belittled it rather than helped him refine it. Professor Sauer probably should have waited to present the technique until he had it down but didn't. Rather than belittle the technique or Professor Sauer the person who had a greater understanding of the it gave information to correct it or to make it better and usable by all. That is what you Sir don't do. You just criticize and present no information to allow for a greater understanding of what is wrong, why it is wrong and what would make it proper technique.



Pulling up a senior instructor at all could be seen as criticizing and belittling. This whole thread is designed towards a greater understanding of what is wrong. More specifically people who can't grapple teaching people to anti grapple.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Why shouldn't we criticize, find fault, and belittle that which deserves those things? If you're going to attack the guard position by essentially saying that its a joke and its relatively easy to escape from/counter (when you know little about it), you're going to get called out for your mistake. Plain and simple.
> 
> The REAL tragedy in all of this is that Hayes could have produced a pretty cool technique if he had actually brought in a grappler to train this technique with. Imagine what Hayes could do if he brought in a Bjj black belt to help him develop Toshindo ground techniques?
> 
> Both Toshindo and Bjj would benefit from that sharing of knowledge.


Criticise by all means. Constructive criticism will help all of us. Belittling has no place on MT or anywhere else for that matter. Good forums don't allow it because it is divisive and destructive. 

The irony is that although you might know something about grappling, and it is up to others who grapple to decide how much you know, you know very little about other styles yet you make the same comments about them and continue with the same comments even when people with first hand knowledge seek to inform you of your misunderstanding.

We are here to expand and share our knowledge, not to read belittling comments. If I wanted to do that I would join Bullshido.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Criticise by all means. Constructive criticism will help all of us. Belittling has no place on MT or anywhere else for that matter. Good forums don't allow it because it is divisive and destructive.
> 
> The irony is that although you might know something about grappling, and it is up to others who grapple to decide how much you know, you know very little about other styles yet you make the same comments about them and continue with the same comments even when people with first hand knowledge seek to inform you of your misunderstanding.
> 
> We are here to expand and share our knowledge, not to read belittling comments. If I wanted to do that I would join Bullshido.




Yet we all post belittling comments.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Criticise by all means. Constructive criticism will help all of us. Belittling has no place on MT or anywhere else for that matter. Good forums don't allow it because it is divisive and destructive.



How exactly is pointing out that the technique is fundamentally flawed, and that Hayes doesn't understand the guard position "belittling"? 

Those would be called *the facts.*


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> How exactly is pointing out that the technique is fundamentally flawed, and that Hayes doesn't understand the guard position "belittling"?
> 
> Those would be called *the facts.*


No thats an opinion.  Im sure Hayes disagrees with your assessment.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No thats an opinion.  Im sure Hayes disagrees with your assessment.



It's not an opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of the guard, or grappling in general have already pointed out the factual issues with that technique.

It's laughable that you think otherwise.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> How exactly is pointing out that the technique is fundamentally flawed, and that Hayes doesn't understand the guard position "belittling"?
> 
> Those would be called *the facts.*


I don't feel the need to go over your thousand or so posts to give examples. Pointing out that someone doesn't understand a technique is fine, showing how that technique could be improved or made to work would be commendable, but adding comments like 'ludicrous', 'laughable', 'joke', 'half baked', 'stupid' etc reduce the value of your comment considerably and are offensive to many.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> It's not an opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of the guard, or grappling in general have already pointed out the factual issues with that technique.
> 
> It's laughable that you think otherwise.



Its laughable that you believe any technique being good or bad is anything other then an opinion.  Did it work?  Yep video shows it clearly worked.  Would it work in real life who knows it could.  Would the technique you do in your OPINION work in real life?  It may it may not.  If its not 100% then its not a "Fact"  If I break a pencil its a fact the pencil is broken.  Its not a fact that the way I broke it was the best way


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It's not an opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of the guard, or grappling in general have already pointed out the factual issues with that technique.
> 
> It's *laughable* that you think otherwise.


As I said, offensive!


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Its laughable that you believe any technique being good or bad is anything other then an opinion.  Did it work?  Yep video shows it clearly worked.  Would it work in real life who knows it could.  Would the technique in your OPINION work in real life?  It may it may not.  If its not 100% then its not a "Fact"  If I break a pencil its a fact the pencil is broken.  Its not a fact that the way I broke it was the best way


Ah yes, you might have broken the pencil but it's anecdotal. Please post a video.


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Ah yes, you might have broken the pencil but it's anecdotal. Please post a video.



Thats right I forgot on this forum many believe if its not on youtube it never happened


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Its laughable that you believe any technique being good or bad is anything other then an opinion.  Did it work?  Yep video shows it clearly worked.



So you think any technique performed on a (overly) compliant partner works? :uhohh:

You must be a big fan of George Dillman. :lol:




> Would it work in real life who knows it could.



It wouldn't. Its already been explained numerous times by several people other than me why that's the case.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So you think any technique performed on a (overly) compliant partner works? :uhohh:
> 
> You must be a big fan of George Dillman. :lol:
> 
> It wouldn't. Its already been explained numerous times by several people other than me why that's the case.


I *am* a big fan of George Dillman. His work was groundbreaking 30 years ago. He has produced some really good videos helping people to understand kata and he did a lot of police training back then. That doesn't mean all of his stuff is relevant or in some cases even valid, but to put Dillman himself down after what he has contributed demonstrates your lack of appreciation for pioneers of the martial arts. Again you post an offensive comment for no reason at all. Is it a lack of maturity or are you just that sort of person that has to belittle people?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So you think any technique performed on a (overly) compliant partner works? :uhohh:
> 
> You must be a big fan of George Dillman. :lol:



Again you don't know that.  Would it work on an experienced grappler probably not.  Would it work on a nOT so experienced person it sure could.   I've seen some crazy stuff happen.  The only absolute in fighting is there is no absolute.  If it was alway the better techniques that won then we wouldn't have upsets in fighting


> It wouldn't. Its already been explained numerous times by several people other than me why that's the case.


Yep everyone gave their OPINIONS still isn't a fact it couldn't work matter how hard you pray to the tap out gods


----------



## Steve

Tony really did a nice job of detailing the issues with the technique.  But, I'm lost.  Are you guys suggesting that Hayes technique, as demonstrated, is one you would recommend?  Are you suggesting that he is teaching techniques from a position of authority?  Should he be?  Do you think that people who are not grapplers, the likely audience of his instruction, are competent to distinguish between good technique and bad?

Ultimately, the point drop bear made is a salient one:


drop bear said:


> This whole thread is designed  towards a greater understanding of what is wrong. *More specifically  people who can't grapple teaching people to anti grapple.*


Emphasis mine.  This is the crux of the entire situation.  The students don't have to be or aspire to be expert grapplers.  But, if the instructor is teaching grappling, he should know what the heck he's talking about.  And if he doesn't, he should say so. 

And by definition (the one we all agree on), anti-grappling is really just a subset of grappling.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Tony really did a nice job of detailing the issues with the technique.  But, I'm lost.  Are you guys suggesting that Hayes technique, as demonstrated, is one you would recommend?


I dont think anyone said it was good, or the prefered method. Even he said it was more of a last resort after other things have failed.  Im just saying its not a "Fact" that its crap.  Its not a"fact" it would never be effective and could "Never" work.


> Are you suggesting that he is teaching techniques from a position of authority?  Should he be?


Reading his bio he seems to believe he is.  So "should" he be?  I have no Idea it may not be grappling in the style you know but it may be perfectly acceptable for his style


> Do you think that people who are not grapplers, the likely audience of his instruction, are competent to distinguish between good technique and bad?


your taking abig leap thinking people in his audience dont know whats good or not.  We are basing our judgement off of a small you tube clip not the entire class. Perhaps his form or posture or hand placement  is off because hes busy talking while teaching, or maybe he was just having an off day, or maybe he just doesn't care and wants $.  I dont know enough about him or the class 


> Ultimately, the point drop bear made is a salient one:
> Emphasis mine.  This is the crux of the entire situation.  The students don't have to be or aspire to be expert grapplers.  But, if the instructor is teaching grappling, he should know what the heck he's talking about.  And if he doesn't, he should say so.
> .


Reading some of the info on Hayes since I dont know much about him but it looks like he believes hes an expert in his style and in the grappling thats within his style.  His style is different then yours.  Grappling is a huge broad thing.  BJJ grappling is different then Judo grappling which is different then Goju grappling which is different then Hapkido, wrestling, ect so whos to say he doesnt know what hes talking about?  I never once heard him say he was teaching anything other then his ownstyle


----------



## Hanzou

So we tried the Toshindo technique in class today, and its actually worse than I anticipated it to be. I had a three stripe white belt get into guard, and I told him to attempt to counter whatever I do. I performed the technique, and he was in mount before I even hit the mat. He hit mount even faster than I thought he would!

I showed the video to my instructor (a three stripe black belt), and he said it was literally one of the worst guard pass attempts he's ever seen.

My instructor then tried to perform the technique on another white belt who had no idea what we were doing, and again, the white belt almost instantly shot into mounted position.

We had a pretty good laugh about the whole thing.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So we tried the Toshindo technique in class today, and its actually worse than I anticipated it to be. I had a three stripe white belt get into guard, and I told him to attempt to counter whatever I do. I performed the technique, and he was in mount before I even hit the mat. He hit mount even faster than I thought he would!
> 
> I showed the video to my instructor (a three stripe black belt), and he said it was literally one of the worst guard pass attempts he's ever seen.
> 
> My instructor then tried to perform the technique on another white belt who had no idea what we were doing, and again, the white belt almost instantly shot into mounted position.
> 
> We had a pretty good laugh about the whole thing.



Style bashing is against the rules here.  Also how much training in Toshindo do you have?  If all you have is the 3 min YouTube clip that's hardly enough to judge a technique


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Style bashing is against the rules here.  Also how much training in Toshindo do you have?



Where did I bash the style? I'm pointing out a faulty technique whose purpose is to counter my style of grappling. Also leg locks are hardly exclusive to Toshinden.



> If all you have is the 3 min YouTube clip that's hardly enough to judge a technique



And yet almost every grappler who responded to this thread is in agreement that the technique is flawed.

It even got the Martial Fail of the week; 

Martial Arts Fail of the Week: How A Ninja Passes the Guard | Cagepotato


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Where did I bash the style? I'm pointing out a faulty technique whose purpose is to counter my style of grappling. Also leg locks are hardly exclusive to Toshinden.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet almost every grappler who responded to this thread is in agreement that the technique is flawed.
> 
> It even got the Martial Fail of the week;
> 
> Martial Arts Fail of the Week: How A Ninja Passes the Guard | Cagepotato



Oh well if every internet bad *** in the world agrees it's the fail of the week it must be true.  Who am I to argue with a site called cage potato. Lol 

I didn't know the Guard was "your" style of grappling


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Again you don't know that.



I don't know what? That the partner was over compliant? You can tell he was in the opening of the video where he winces from a knee to the butt in an overally exaggerated fashion.





Oh how I wish someone would plant there hands on the mat like that for me.....:lol:



> Would it work on an experienced grappler probably not. Would it work on a nOT so experienced person it sure could.   I've seen some crazy stuff happen.  The only absolute in fighting is there is no absolute.  If it was alway the better techniques that won then we wouldn't have upsets in fighting



What would be your definition of a "not so experienced grappler"? I had a white belt with about three months worth of training completely counter this technique on my instructor. A person with no grappling experience is highly unlikely to get you in a hold  that would require you to counter him with a sophisticated leg lock. The argument that these techniques are designed for unskilled grapplers is complete nonsense, and its only made when these "anti-grappling" techniques from non-grapplers are proven to be ineffective.



> Yep everyone gave their OPINIONS still isn't a fact it couldn't work matter how hard you pray to the tap out gods



I think my instructor said it best: The only way that guard pass would work is if you fell asleep and purposely let the guy roll your legs into a leg lock.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think anyone said it was good, or the prefered method. Even he said it was more of a last resort after other things have failed.



As I mentioned, I'm more concerned that his "first resorts" before he moved on to the technique in question were seriously, seriously flawed.



ballen0351 said:


> I have no Idea it may not be grappling in the style you know but it may be perfectly acceptable for his style



Well, it's his style that he invented, so by definition anything he shows is "perfectly acceptable for his style." He could decree that the proper way to defeat a puncher is to repeatedly bash your own nose into the other guys fist and that would become the official "correct" Toshindo method. That wouldn't make it any good. For the record, Steve's primary background is in the Bujinkan, but the ground methods he is showing are not derived from the Bujinkan arts. It's his own stuff that he made up himself. 



ballen0351 said:


> Grappling is a huge broad thing.  BJJ grappling is different then Judo grappling which is different then Goju grappling which is different then Hapkido, wrestling, ect so whos to say he doesnt know what hes talking about?  I never once heard him say he was teaching anything other then his ownstyle



BJJ is my primary focus these days, but from my perspective grappling is grappling. Different arts focus on different aspects of the whole based on the context they are training for, but to me they are just different facets of the same enormous beautiful gem. I have trained with practitioners of Wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Tai Chi, Danzan Ryu, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, Kali, JKD, Muay Thai, Aikido, Jukado, Toshindo, Systema, MMA, Karate, and more, and learned from all of them. (I've also spent time studying video of other grappling arts that I haven't had the chance to study in person.)  If something works, it works. I have no problem giving credit to other styles even when they are focusing on a different aspect of grappling than I am. I am saying that, based on my experience grappling hundreds of people with a huge variety of body types, experience and styles, the stuff Steve is showing in this video is barely one step above "pummel the other guys fist with your nose."

I think this is a shame. As I've said, Steve Hayes is a talented guy with excellent teaching skills. If he took the time to understand the basics of ground grappling, he would do a great job of teaching it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I don't know what?


That it will or won't work in real life 


> That the partner was over compliant? You can tell he was in the opening of the video where he winces from a knee to the butt in an overally exaggerated fashion.


Yep that's how demos work.  It's hard to explain and perform a technique to a class of your partner is resisting.  However since all we have is a 3 min short clip and we were not in the class to see what else happened 


> What would be your definition of a "not so experienced grappler"?


Lol ummmm someone that doesn't train in grappling.  I didn't think it was that tough to figure out


> I had a white belt with about three months worth of training completely counter this technique on my instructor. A person with no grappling experience is highly unlikely to get you in a hold  that would require you to counter him with a sophisticated leg lock. The argument that these techniques are designed for unskilled grapplers is complete nonsense, and its only made when these "anti-grappling" techniques from non-grapplers are proven to be ineffective.



You do understand BJJ is not the only way right?  I mean I know anyone can spend 25 bucks a month to watch your schools internet BJJ classes and be a skillef BJJ persin but there are other ways to grapple.  You enjoy BJJ that great but it's not the only way.  





> I think my instructor said it best: The only way that guard pass would work is if you fell asleep and purposely let the guy roll your legs into a leg lock.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's great your instructor is smart enough to watch a 3 min YouTube clip then talk crap behind someone's back that's not present to defend himself on a technique  your instructor knows nothing about.  Sounds like a swell guy
Click to expand...


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I mentioned, I'm more concerned that his "first resorts" before he moved on to the technique in question were seriously, seriously flawed.


Well since he really didn't give much info on the 1st resort other then punching or knees but no real detail it's hard to make that determination really.  Unless there is a video someplace where he goes into more detail that you saw.  I didn't I took it as a broad generalization of strikes as his main go to.


> Well, it's his style that he invented, so by definition anything he shows is "perfectly acceptable for his style." He could decree that the proper way to defeat a puncher is to repeatedly bash your own nose into the other guys fist and that would become the official "correct" Toshindo method. That wouldn't make it any good. For the record, Steve's primary background is in the Bujinkan, but the ground methods he is showing are not derived from the Bujinkan arts. It's his own stuff that he made up himself.


Who are you or I to tell someone else what they can and can't teach and what's good or not.  If I don't like what's being shown I'll move on to soemplace else but I'm not going to get on the internet and talk trash about him or his style (not saying that's what your doing).  Fact is most people will train their entire life and never need their martial.arts no matter what style it is so if people are happy training and find value in it then great.  


> BJJ is my primary focus these days,but from my perspective grappling is grappling. Different arts focus on different aspects of the whole based on the context they are training for, but to me they are just different facets of the same enormous beautiful gem. I have trained with practitioners of Wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Tai Chi, Danzan Ryu, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, Kali, JKD, Muay Thai, Aikido, Jukado, Toshindo, Systema, MMA, Karate, and more, and learned from all of them. (I've also spent time studying video of other grappling arts that I haven't had the chance to study in person.)  If something works, it works. I have no problem giving credit to other styles even when they are focusing on a different aspect of grappling than I am. I am saying that, based on my experience grappling hundreds of people with a huge variety of body types, experience and styles, the stuff Steve is showing in this video is barely one step above "pummel the other guys fist with your nose."



Yes grappling is grappling and again you may not like the technique but that doesn't mean it won't work.  I once went to a call where a woman beat an armed robber with a canned ham.  Is it the best technique nope but it worked.  Would his technique be the best?  Nope but it's also not the main focus of his style either so comparing his grappling to BJJ of course his will look less refined and less polished and even rudimentary but that doesn't mean it won't ever work.  


> I think this is a shame. As I've said, Steve Hayes is a talented guy with excellent teaching skills. If he took the time to understand the basics of ground grappling, he would do a great job of teaching it.


All the more reason to think there may be more to it then we saw in a 3 min clip.  If he's that good of a teacher after all


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Yep that's how demos work.  It's hard to explain and perform a technique to a class of your partner is resisting.  However since all we have is a 3 min short clip and we were not in the class to see what else happened









Seriously?

I hate to break it to you, but that technique doesn't work either. Also, Hayes is in prime position to get his shoulder snapped. If you would like to know how, just ask. 



> Lol ummmm someone that doesn't train in grappling.  I didn't think it was that tough to figure out



Someone who doesn't train in grappling isn't going to put you in a guard strong enough to require a sophisticated grappling move to get out of.



> You do understand BJJ is not the only way right?  I mean I know anyone can spend 25 bucks a month to watch your schools internet BJJ classes and be a skillef BJJ persin but there are other ways to grapple.  You enjoy BJJ that great but it's not the only way.



What? :uhoh:



> Well that's great your instructor is smart enough to watch a 3 min YouTube clip then talk crap behind someone's back that's not present to defend himself on a technique  your instructor knows nothing about.  Sounds like a swell guy



My instructor knows the guard. He knows what can counter the guard and what can't counter the guard. Sorry, but that technique can't counter the guard.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think anyone said it was good, or the prefered method. Even he said it was more of a last resort after other things have failed.  Im just saying its not a "Fact" that its crap.  Its not a"fact" it would never be effective and could "Never" work.
> 
> Reading his bio he seems to believe he is.  So "should" he be?  I have no Idea it may not be grappling in the style you know but it may be perfectly acceptable for his style
> 
> your taking abig leap thinking people in his audience dont know whats good or not.  We are basing our judgement off of a small you tube clip not the entire class. Perhaps his form or posture or hand placement  is off because hes busy talking while teaching, or maybe he was just having an off day, or maybe he just doesn't care and wants $.  I dont know enough about him or the class
> 
> Reading some of the info on Hayes since I dont know much about him but it looks like he believes hes an expert in his style and in the grappling thats within his style.  His style is different then yours.  Grappling is a huge broad thing.  BJJ grappling is different then Judo grappling which is different then Goju grappling which is different then Hapkido, wrestling, ect so whos to say he doesnt know what hes talking about?  I never once heard him say he was teaching anything other then his ownstyle



All of this is fine.  But the technique is flawed and many people have pointed out why.  You seem to agree.   So why the gyrations to rationalize it?   I don't know the guy and am not commenting on more than what I've seen.  There seems to two conversations going on.  One about the grappling, which we all seem to agree is poor.   And another about how we shouldn't point out how poor the grappling is because it's a little mean. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Seriously?
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but that technique doesn't work either. Also, Hayes is in prime position to get his shoulder snapped. If you would like to know how, just ask.


Again that's your OPINION...........




> Someone who doesn't train in grappling isn't going to put you in a guard strong enough to require a sophisticated grappling move to get out of.


How do you know?  You seem to know everything about fighting.  You make alot of assumptions.  


> What? :uhoh:


Yeah that was a jumbled mess.  Posting from my phone sometimes letters run together.  I'm trying to say BJJ isn't the only way.  Then was commentng on your schools internet based training.  For just 25 bucks a month I guess I can be an expert like you.  


> My instructor knows the guard. He knows what can counter the guard and what can't counter the guard. Sorry, but that technique can't counter the guard.


And he would be wrong since it clearly can counter the guard.  It's right there on youtube


----------



## Steve

It is also my opinion.  Yes.  And others as well.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> All of this is fine.  But the technique is flawed and many people have pointed out why.  You seem to agree.   So why the gyrations to rationalize it?   I don't know the guy and am not commenting on more than what I've seen.  There seems to two conversations going on.  One about the grappling, which we all seem to agree is poor.   And another about how we shouldn't point out how poor the grappling is because it's a little mean.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nothing to do with being "mean"  Everything to do with its none of our business what other styles teach.  If we don't like it fine don't do it.  Most people that walk into a gym to train will never need it so why do you care what someone else is teaching and what makes you an expert to say what will and won't work from a 3 min clip?  (That's a generic you not you personally)  if you want to discuss the problems with a technique that's fine from a technical standpoint.  But to then say yeah we had a good laugh at this styles founder over this or its ok to bash something if we don't agree well I disagree.  It's not OK.  I don't train in that style and don't know Hayes but I also think it's pretty childish to bad mouth the guy on the forums when you only see 3 min of a YouTube clip.  If someone was actually at the class or seminar and has first hand knowledge that's one thing but to base it off a short YouTube clip well that's another.

I'm also not rationalizing the technique.  I just disagree that it's a "fact" it couldn't never work.  There is no "never" and "always" in self-defense.  I also think some of you are taking this too seriously.  This is a hobby for most people so who cares what Hayes teaches.  If his guys like it so be it.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It is also my opinion.  Yes.  And others as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That's correct but it's far from a fact


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Again that's your OPINION...........



Get a partner and try that move sometime. 



> How do you know?  You seem to know everything about fighting.  You make alot of assumptions.



So you actually believe that an untrained person can magically perform an effective guard that a person can't punch their way out of? Please tell me you're joking.



> Yeah that was a jumbled mess.  Posting from my phone sometimes letters run together.  I'm trying to say BJJ isn't the only way.  Then was commentng on your schools internet based training.  For just 25 bucks a month I guess I can be an expert like you.



I was saying "what" because that response had nothing to do with what I said.

Also only one branch of Bjj does online belts. Most of us aren't affiliated with that branch. Also you can only get to Blue belt. Blue belts in Bjj are hardly "experts".



> And he would be wrong since it clearly can counter the guard.  It's right there on youtube



Now you're just trolling. Congratulations.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> That's correct but it's far from a fact


I think it's a fact that the technique is questionable.   Its my opinion that it shouldn't be taught.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Get a partner and try that move sometime.


Naaa I'm good I don't roll around on the ground


> So you actually believe that an untrained person can magically perform an effective guard that a person can't punch their way out of? Please tell me you're joking.


I don't assume anything since I know anything in the self defense world is possible.  You feel free to underestimate people all you want.  




> I was saying "what" because that response had nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> Also only one branch of Bjj does online belts. Most of us aren't affiliated with that branch. Also you can only get to Blue belt. Blue belts in Bjj are hardly "experts".


Well not according to the website affiliated to your picture. 



> Now you're just trolling. Congratulations.



You have been doing that this entire thread so ummmm congratulations?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I think it's a fact that the technique is questionable.   Its my opinion that it shouldn't be taught.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 Well that's Simple Then you shouldn't attend classes with him then huh?  It's hardly a fact that is questionable since the guy teaching is thinks it's fine.


Why do you care what he teaches?


----------



## K-man

Here's another.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrOuoYwBqw


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Naaa I'm good I don't roll around on the ground



So how would you know if the technique worked or not?



> I don't assume anything since I know anything in the self defense world is possible.  You feel free to underestimate people all you want.



Developing a skillful guard without training that is capable of neutralizing a trained opponent isn't possible.



> Well not according to the website affiliated to your picture.



Draculino doesn't give out online belts;



> *Can you get awarded a belt through this site?*
> ABSOLUTELY NOT. We follow the IBJJF rules with regards to awarding belts and as such will never let you submit videos to be awarded a belt. However, if you have proof of training and want to come test with Draculino for a week, he may decide to award a belt. Again, we follow the Federation guidelines when awarding belts and see this site as a fantastic compliment to regular training.





> You have been doing that this entire thread so ummmm congratulations?



Factually pointing out flawed techniques designed to (supposedly) dismantle one of the foundations of my art is considered trolling now?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Well that's Simple Then you shouldn't attend classes with him then huh?  It's hardly a fact that is questionable since the guy teaching is thinks it's fine.
> 
> 
> Why do you care what he teaches?


Because he thread is about anti grappling and the video was posted for discussion.  Seems like a very reasonable reason.  Why do you care so much about what I care about?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Here's another.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrOuoYwBqw



Do you see how this technique is fundamentally different than the one in the Hayes video?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Here's another.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrOuoYwBqw



It's not "another". That move actually works.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Do you see how this technique is fundamentally different than the one in the Hayes video?


No. I can see that he stood first but fundamentally the technique is the same.



Hanzou said:


> It's not "another". That move actually works.


Great of you to acknowledge that. What it in fact means that the technique is not laughable or flawed. The way Steve Hayes was transitioning into it may have been. So instead of bagging the man and his technique you could have shown us how to make the technique work instead of suggesting it wouldn't.

Oh, and here is another.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZowSbZbks

Seems to me lots of guys can make it work. Why not you and your three bar instructor?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

We all have to give Mr. Hayes credit for bringing groundwork into his system of To Shin Do.  I have not trained with Steve but know several people who have and they had nothing but good things to say of his Taijutsu.  Actually for the students of To Shin Do learning grappling is a good thing.  I would as I have done throughout the thread advise anyone who is bringing grappling into their system to go out and train with competent grapplers so that they can adapt it to their system from a structural and fundamentally sound position.  Whether those people are in Brazilian Jiujitsu, wrestling, etc. it does not matter.  Learn from someone who understands what they are doing.   If you are adapting and innovating things bounce it then off one of your grappling friends.  Just my 02.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> No. I can see that he stood first but fundamentally the technique is the same.
> 
> 
> Great of you to acknowledge that. What it in fact means that the technique is not laughable or flawed. The way Steve Hayes was transitioning into it may have been. So instead of bagging the man and his technique you could have shown us how to make the technique work instead of suggesting it wouldn't.
> 
> Oh, and here is another.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZowSbZbks
> 
> Seems to me lots of guys can make it work. Why not you and your three bar instructor?



OK so it is the man that is at fault and not the move. Hence anti grappling needs to be taught by grapplers and Stephen Haynes needs to outsource his training instead of teaching his non working half concept.

This is ironically still consistent. Because you see a lot of fundamental escapes in anti grappling they are just broken by the instructor who does not understand what he is teaching.

And by teaching of course we mean selling.

And by the way there is still no reason to bash your uke. This goes double for leg locks as they don't have the wiggle room.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> We all have to give Mr. Hayes credit for bringing groundwork into his system of To Shin Do.  I have not trained with Steve but know several people who have and they had nothing but good things to say of his Taijutsu.  Actually for the students of To Shin Do learning grappling is a good thing.  I would as I have done throughout the thread advise anyone who is bringing grappling into their system to go out and train with competent grapplers so that they can adapt it to their system from a structural and fundamentally sound position.  Whether those people are in Brazilian Jiujitsu, wrestling, etc. it does not matter.  Learn from someone who understands what they are doing.   If you are adapting and innovating things bounce it then off one of your grappling friends.  Just my 02.




And this is why with MMA you will see people grade to high ranks in the styles they are trying to incorporate. Not just attend a seminar or watch a YouTube video.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> No. I can see that he stood first but fundamentally the technique is the same.



Nope. Remember what I said in my earlier comment about moves that look superficially the same? The Hayes demonstration was missing everything which makes Dave's technique work in the video you linked to. I kind of suspect Steve may have watched a video like that one and invented his own version based on what he thought he was seeing without understanding the important parts that make it work.

Just to be clear, when we're saying Hayes video is seriously, seriously flawed, we're not saying the leg lock at the end isn't a valid submission. (Steve's execution could be improved, but that's not what we're talking about.) We're talking about the actual guard break and entry into the submission.



K-man said:


> Oh, and here is another.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZowSbZbks
> 
> Seems to me lots of guys can make it work. Why not you and your three bar instructor?



That version is definitely low percentage, but it isn't as fatally flawed as what Hayes was teaching. And no, it's not the same technique.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think anyone said it was good, or the prefered method. Even he said it was more of a last resort after other things have failed.  Im just saying its not a "Fact" that its crap.  Its not a"fact" it would never be effective and could "Never" work.
> 
> Reading his bio he seems to believe he is.  So "should" he be?  I have no Idea it may not be grappling in the style you know but it may be perfectly acceptable for his style
> 
> your taking abig leap thinking people in his audience dont know whats good or not.  We are basing our judgement off of a small you tube clip not the entire class. Perhaps his form or posture or hand placement  is off because hes busy talking while teaching, or maybe he was just having an off day, or maybe he just doesn't care and wants $.  I dont know enough about him or the class
> 
> Reading some of the info on Hayes since I dont know much about him but it looks like he believes hes an expert in his style and in the grappling thats within his style.  His style is different then yours.  Grappling is a huge broad thing.  BJJ grappling is different then Judo grappling which is different then Goju grappling which is different then Hapkido, wrestling, ect so whos to say he doesnt know what hes talking about?  I never once heard him say he was teaching anything other then his ownstyle




It is not that big a leap. If the teacher does not have the basic tools to teach. Why would the student?

You are trying to suggest that stylistic difference is the same as works/doesn't work. I believe that is a misconception. I mean if you were to go learn a grappling style and had to choose wrestling,judo,bjj. There is an argument that you should choose for a stylistic reason. But they all have been made to work.

Very few bjjers will turn around and discount a top wrestlers advice because it is not their thing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> You are trying to suggest that stylistic difference is the same as works/doesn't work. I believe that is a misconception. I mean if you were to go learn a grappling style and had to choose wrestling,judo,bjj. There is an argument that you should choose for a stylistic reason. But they all have been made to work.
> 
> Very few bjjers will turn around and discount a top wrestlers advice because it is not their thing.



Yep. I may be a BJJ practitioner, but I love having the chance to get advice from a good wrestler, judoka, or sambist.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Something just occurred to me.  Isn't self defense training a worst case scenario type thing?  I just read this exchange and it seemed as though the two roles were reversed.  I would expect the RBSD guy to be asking the what ifs and the non-self defense guy answering.
> 
> RTKDCMB: what if you couldn't drop your hips because the shot was too deep?  What if you didn't "drop him?"  What if you're now on your back and his hips are in front of yours (ie, you are bottom under mount), the mount is very high, limiting use of your arms and putting a tremendous amount of pressure directly on your diaphragm making it difficult to breathe, and he is using his forearm and elbow to strike your face?



No self defence isn't. It is an enough to get by thing. Sport is over engineered and why it looks unrealistic. And why I mentioned somewhere there just do the knee slide. You are teaching ninjers not grapplers.

Same as when I do knife. I don't learn advanced stuff. I make do with solid fundamental basics. And accept my limitations.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> OK so it is the man that is at fault and not the move. Hence anti grappling needs to be taught by grapplers and Stephen Haynes needs to outsource his training instead of teaching his non working half concept.
> 
> This is ironically still consistent. Because you see a lot of fundamental escapes in anti grappling they are just broken by the instructor who does not understand what he is teaching.
> 
> And by teaching of course we mean selling.
> 
> And by the way there is still no reason to bash your uke. This goes double for leg locks as they don't have the wiggle room.


That's all I was trying to point out. When I saw the technique it looked ok as an end point, but there were numerous posts pointing out how bad it was. Whether the instructor demonstrating is right or not isn't the point. On this forum we have many knowledgeable martial artists and I like to think I can get some good advice when something like this comes up. Normally I wouldn't be wanting to do this type of technique because my philosophy is to get up and away, not go from one grappling position to another. However, I would like to try it out on some of my guys. Thank you for the advice, I will be careful of the knees. I just wish others had been as careful with my elbows. 

I could put up dozens of videos that I believe show that people think they know what they don't. That is when we should be able to have our colleagues here explain how it could be done better, not just say it is a joke. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> That's all I was trying to point out. When I saw the technique it looked ok as an end point, but there were numerous posts pointing out how bad it was. Whether the instructor demonstrating is right or not isn't the point. On this forum we have many knowledgeable martial artists and I like to think I can get some good advice when something like this comes up. Normally I wouldn't be wanting to do this type of technique because my philosophy is to get up and away, not go from one grappling position to another. However, I would like to try it out on some of my guys. Thank you for the advice, I will be careful of the knees. I just wish others had been as careful with my elbows.
> 
> I could put up dozens of videos that I believe show that people think they know what they don't. That is when we should be able to have our colleagues here explain how it could be done better, not just say it is a joke.
> :asian:



You could probably use that as a breakaway.  Just don't hang on to the ankle. 

Yeah they show the guard pass and the stand up and walk off on that video. And doing that will mean you won't unintentionally break someone's leg if both of you don't fully understand leg locks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrOuoYwBqw

And I am serious about both of you. All your partner needs to do is try a "I wonder what happens if I escape like this? CRACK"

And you are driving the silly guy to the hospital.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Great of you to acknowledge that. What it in fact means that the technique is not laughable or flawed.



That isn't the same technique. Also, there was far more in Hayes' video that was laughable or flawed besides the actual technique. The stupid and pointless knee to the buttocks that left Hayes wide open for several horrible arm bars, shoulder locks, and sweeps for example.



> The way Steve Hayes was transitioning into it may have been. So instead of bagging the man and his technique you could have shown us how to make the technique work instead of suggesting it wouldn't.



Plenty of people do that already, which is why I "bagged" on Hayes. There's no reason to create a half-baked technique when sound techniques that accomplish the same purpose already exist. There's no reason to embarrass yourself and your style when there's plenty of competent grapplers out there who would be more than willing to train with you and develop the ground fighting of your system. The only reasoning I can think of is that Hayes wanted to create a "ninja" version of the guard pass all on his own, and failed miserably. This, unfortunately makes people question his entire system of Martial Arts, and that's a shame.



> Oh, and here is another.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZowSbZbks
> 
> Seems to me lots of guys can make it work. Why not you and your three bar instructor?






Because again, that isn't the same technique. The technique includes the actual guard pass to hit the lock, not just the lock itself.  Remember, the *goal *is to pass the guard. If your technique can't pass the guard, the entire technique is useless. Hayes' guard pass is a failure because it places you in an even worse position than you're trying to pass out of. You're never going to get to the Boston crab, because the grappler is going to be on top of you turning your face into hamburger.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Except the video is coming from a position of authority, so constructive criticism is pointless. Toshindo isn't going to change that technique because of criticism, they think it works fine against someone putting you in the guard. Constructive criticism is what happens when you're putting together that technique, and refining it into a sound product. We're way passed that point now, so all we can do now is point out how wrong it is.-



Constructive criticism doesn't have to only be constructive to the person showing the technique. If you have legitimate corrections and improvements (and I am sure you do) and you want people to take you seriously then rubbishing and belittling them is not the way to do it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> You are teaching ninjers not grapplers.



Is a Ninjer, .someone who Ninge's?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> So how would you know if the technique worked or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Developing a skillful guard without training that is capable of neutralizing a trained opponent isn't possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Draculino doesn't give out online belts;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factually pointing out flawed techniques designed to (supposedly) dismantle one of the foundations of my art is considered trolling now?





RTKDCMB said:


> Constructive criticism doesn't have to only be constructive to the person showing the technique. If you have legitimate corrections and improvements (and I am sure you do) and you want people to take you seriously then rubbishing and belittling them is not the way to do it.




You think you get a better result by being easily offended and lecturing people? Especially in defence of somone who is teaching bad stuff.

Like anything the issue is nuanced rather than black and white. There is a level you can go before it just becomes a pile on for no good reason.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Is a Ninjer, .someone who Ninge's?



Yep they ninge when they should be wraslin.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> Constructive criticism doesn't have to only be constructive to the person showing the technique. If you have legitimate corrections and improvements (and I am sure you do) and you want people to take you seriously then rubbishing and belittling them is not the way to do it.



Sorry, but stuff like this;







Is beyond constructive criticism. Its simply bad. You don't see it because you're not knowledgeable about the guard position, but Hayes is displaying a fundamental lack of knowledge here about the position he's attempting to counter. 

Even experienced martial artists like yourself and Kman couldn't recognize the problems in that video. Do you think his students can? They Ooo'd and Aah'd about it. They have absolutely no clue about the ridiculousness that they've just been taught. So now you have these ninja thinking that they can stop a grappler, and they're going to get demolished. I have a big problem with that, because its simply irresponsible.


----------



## punisher73

Hanzou said:


> Sorry, but stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is beyond constructive criticism. Its simply bad. You don't see it because you're not knowledgeable about the guard position, but Hayes is displaying a fundamental lack of knowledge here about the position he's attempting to counter.
> 
> Even experienced martial artists like yourself and Kman couldn't recognize the problems in that video. Do you think his students can? They Ooo'd and Aah'd about it. They have absolutely no clue about the ridiculousness that they've just been taught. So now you have these ninja thinking that they can stop a grappler, and they're going to get demolished. I have a big problem with that, because its simply irresponsible.



I haven't read through the whole 37 pages of this, but this is correct.

Hayes has not established any posture whatsoever to start to counter his opponent's guard. There is a reason why grapplers train lots in the guard position.  Hayes is leaving himself open to many sweeps and other counters, not including the guy in the guard attempting a triangle/armbar because of his poor posture and leaning in.

I remember looking at a book at the bookstore about pressure point fighting vs. a grappler.  One of the techniques they showed was when you are mounted, hit the attacker with a heel palm to the chest and then slide a spearhand into the notch at the base of the throat.  Sounds good in theory, unless you understand a basic armbar from the mount.  You have just handed your attacker an easy gift to give you a broken arm.

With that being said.  If Hayes (or anyone else) is giving techniques for an untrained person who just happens to land in that position and has no clue what they are doing and they admit as much, then the techniques might work.  I have sparred with people before and it has gone to the ground and you end up in that position, but it wasn't a planned strategic defense on their part and it was easily passed, so it does happen.  I just don't like techniques created and shown against an attack/strategy when the person showing doesn't have a full knowledge of it either.

Even if you love your art and what you do.  Spend 6 months to a year learning a ground system so you do understand at least HOW the tactics and techniques are applied.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Sorry, but stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is beyond constructive criticism. Its simply bad. You don't see it because you're not knowledgeable about the guard position, but Hayes is displaying a fundamental lack of knowledge here about the position he's attempting to counter.
> 
> Even experienced martial artists like yourself and Kman couldn't recognize the problems in that video. Do you think his students can? They Ooo'd and Aah'd about it. They have absolutely no clue about the ridiculousness that they've just been taught. So now you have these ninja thinking that they can stop a grappler, and they're going to get demolished. I have a big problem with that, because its simply irresponsible.



You know that I haven't said one word about the technique shown in the video right?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So how would you know if the technique worked or not?


Because I've been around long enough to know anything is possible.  Will it work every time no.  But clearly in the video it worked so.....




> Developing a skillful guard without training that is capable of neutralizing a trained opponent isn't possible.


I disagree and have spoken to an attempted rape victim that had zero self defense training that used a very effective guard to keep a rapist from completing the rape and she was able to claw that crap out of his face at the same time to make friends easy identification.


> Draculino doesn't give out online belts;


Right that's extra I read.  


> Factually pointing out flawed techniques designed to (supposedly) dismantle one of the foundations of my art is considered trolling now?


No calling them names and talking about the great laugh you had at the expense of another's style then to bring up other martial artists like Dillman to further make jokes is trolling.  You were asked several times for a technical discussion on the technique buy you just started making Ninja jokes


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Because he thread is about anti grappling and the video was posted for discussion.  Seems like a very reasonable reason.  Why do you care so much about what I care about?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



No I mean why do you care what he teaches?  You want to discuss the technique that's great that's why we are here but why do you care what he teaches in his style to his students?


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> It is not that big a leap. If the teacher does not have the basic tools to teach. Why would the student?


Teach what?  Tokindo well since its his invention he can teach whatever he wants.  If he were teaching it and calling it BJJ then yeah you would have a point because at best its poor BJJ but thats not what hes doing 


> You are trying to suggest that stylistic difference is the same as works/doesn't work. I believe that is a misconception. I mean if you were to go learn a grappling style and had to choose wrestling,judo,bjj. There is an argument that you should choose for a stylistic reason. But they all have been made to work.


No Im saying you cant say one way or another if this technique would work in real life.  Has anyone tried it in real life?  If someone tried it 20 times in real life would it fail 20 times?  You cant answer that.  You can guess but thats it.


> Very few bjjers will turn around and discount a top wrestlers advice because it is not their thing.


Hes not a BJJer


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> I could put up dozens of videos that I believe show that people think they know what they don't. That is when we should be able to have our colleagues here *explain how it could be done better*, not just say it is a joke.



Okay, since a few people have said something along these lines ...

Let's take a look at the video you posted which you perceived as showing "fundamentally the same" technique and I perceived as fundamentally different. Dave in this video is doing a number of things which make his technique work much better:

1) He starts out with good base, posture, and hand position that will make him difficult to sweep or submit.
2) He controls the hips of the person on bottom. (very important)
3) He uses that hip control to break open the guard before he tries to apply the leg lock. (also important) The standing up to do so is just one option. What counts is that he gets the legs open. He is able to break the guard as easily as he does primarily because of his size, but he's backing up that size with technique. At this point the correct response for the player on the bottom is to retract his legs and place his feet on his opponent's hips. By leaving his legs where they are he makes them targets. The rest of the technique is taking advantage of this mistake by the bottom person.
4) He continues to control the hips of the bottom person as he puts one knee down and tilts his opponent to one side. This is a nice detail which should enhance his chances of completing the stepover.
5) When he steps over, he doesn't fall to his back and invite his opponent to mount him. He uses his back arm to post and stay upright. This is a crucial difference between this version and Hayes's version.
6) At the end, he faces towards his opponent instead of away. This is the innovation he was talking about, and it looks like a good one that should increase his control and pressure on the leg-lock.

Overall, it was a solid demonstration and I would be very respectful when stepping on the mat with this gentleman.

Note - if you and your training partner are not familiar and comfortable with leg locks you should be very careful with this one or skip it entirely. There is some potential for accidental knee injury if you don't know what you are doing.

This technique originates in catch wrestling. It's not super high-percentage against a skilled guard player because a experienced person will know to retract their legs as soon as the guard is broken. It is a legitimate move to take advantage of an opponent's mistake.

Your second example is not nearly as well done as the first. The instructor doesn't control the hips or break the guard before turning over. He's basically relying on superior strength and an unskilled opponent who doesn't react to counter him in any way. What he does do correctly is to post an arm to stay upright rather than falling to his back as Hayes does.

I hope this breakdown helps.


----------



## ballen0351

punisher73 said:


> I haven't read through the whole 37 pages of this, but this is correct.
> 
> Hayes has not established any posture whatsoever to start to counter his opponent's guard. There is a reason why grapplers train lots in the guard position.  Hayes is leaving himself open to many sweeps and other counters, not including the guy in the guard attempting a triangle/armbar because of his poor posture and leaning in.
> 
> I remember looking at a book at the bookstore about pressure point fighting vs. a grappler.  One of the techniques they showed was when you are mounted, hit the attacker with a heel palm to the chest and then slide a spearhand into the notch at the base of the throat.  Sounds good in theory, unless you understand a basic armbar from the mount.  You have just handed your attacker an easy gift to give you a broken arm.
> 
> With that being said.  If Hayes (or anyone else) is giving techniques for an untrained person who just happens to land in that position and has no clue what they are doing and they admit as much, then the techniques might work.  I have sparred with people before and it has gone to the ground and you end up in that position, but it wasn't a planned strategic defense on their part and it was easily passed, so it does happen.  I just don't like techniques created and shown against an attack/strategy when the person showing doesn't have a full knowledge of it either.
> 
> Even if you love your art and what you do.  Spend 6 months to a year learning a ground system so you do understand at least HOW the tactics and techniques are applied.



Where you in the class?  Perhaps his posture is off because hes trying to talk to the camera.  Perhaps his hand placements are off because hes raising his body to look at the other students to make eye contact like a good instructor.   Im not saying your wrong just that you make alot of assumption off a short clip


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Sorry, but stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is beyond constructive criticism. Its simply bad. You don't see it because you're not knowledgeable about the guard position, but Hayes is displaying a fundamental lack of knowledge here about the position he's attempting to counter.
> 
> Even experienced martial artists like yourself and Kman couldn't recognize the problems in that video. Do you think his students can? They Ooo'd and Aah'd about it. They have absolutely no clue about the ridiculousness that they've just been taught. So now you have these ninja thinking that they can stop a grappler, and they're going to get demolished. I have a big problem with that, because its simply irresponsible.




And before k man finds it yes there is a real guard break that looks like that.

But it definatley ain't that.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Where you in the class?  Perhaps his posture is off because hes trying to talk to the camera.  Perhaps his hand placements are off because hes raising his body to look at the other students to make eye contact like a good instructor.   Im not saying your wrong just that you make alot of assumption off a short clip




Occam's razor. It is more likely he is crap than he was put off multiple times by the humidity of the mats or something.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Teach what?  Tokindo well since its his invention he can teach whatever he wants.  If he were teaching it and calling it BJJ then yeah you would have a point because at best its poor BJJ but thats not what hes doing
> 
> No Im saying you cant say one way or another if this technique would work in real life.  Has anyone tried it in real life?  If someone tried it 20 times in real life would it fail 20 times?  You cant answer that.  You can guess but thats it.
> 
> Hes not a BJJer



OK then tokino has sub standard grappling I have no issue with that if he wants to teach sub standard grappling he should go right ahead. And if hanzou wants to teach people what substandard grappling he can as well and hanzou can call that anti grappling.


A theoretical debate? Will it work? I guess we will just never know.

 Wait.

 No.

 I can try it. I can even try it 20 times. So I guess we will know. I am not even sure where you were going with that argument.


----------



## ballen0351

No we still won't know of it works if you try it 20 times.  Just because you can't get it to work doesn't mean somebody else can't get it to work


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> No we still won't know of it works if you try it 20 times.  Just because you can't get it to work doesn't mean somebody else can't get it to work



Then the onus would be on them to get it to work. Not on me.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Then the onus would be on them to get it to work. Not on me.



No the onus is on you to go to him and actually learn the technique not just watch a 3 min YouTube clip and assume you know it now


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> No the onus is on you to go to him and actually learn the technique not just watch a 3 min YouTube clip and assume you know it now



Pretty sure that is what he did. I learn grappling  from guys who can grapple.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure that is what he did.



Who did?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Who did?



Serphen haynes. More likely than the sun was in his eyes or that I am just not learning grappling correctly.


----------



## Hanzou

Ballen, would you be so kind as to explain how this technique and posture would work against an advanced white belt or Blue belt in Bjj?







Hayes is saying that this technique helps disable someone in guard, causing them excutiating pain as demonstrated by the guy on the mat. This pain helps weaken the guard. However, to generate enough necessary striking power, you have to plant your hands on the mat in order to balance yourself.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Serphen haynes. More likely than the sun was in his eyes or that I am just not learning grappling correctly.



I'd agree if he was teaching BJJ but he's not he's teaching his own style so if you want to use his style you should lean it.  


I think it's reckless to bash a style based on a 3 min YouTube clip.  Especially when by most accounts Hayes is a good martial artist.  I think without much more firsthand knowledge of the actual technique then he deserves the benefit of the doubt


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Ballen, would you be so kind as to explain how this technique and posture would work against an advanced white belt or Blue belt in Bjj?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hayes is saying that this technique helps disable someone in guard, causing them excutiating pain as demonstrated by the guy on the mat. This pain helps weaken the guard. However, to generate enough necessary striking power, you have to plant your hands on the mat in order to balance yourself.



Well since I'm not a BJJ guy I'm not sure I know what would or wouldn't work against a blue belt.  Also since every school has different requirements and standards to reach blue belts.  I can say as someone that Broke his tailbone before slipping on the ice and falling onto stairs that it HURTS.  If I were to use that technique I wouldn't aim for the meat of the butt I'd aim for the bone in the crack


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> If I were to use that technique I wouldn't aim for the meat of the butt I'd aim for the* bone in the crack*



And cause a crack in the bone.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> Who are you or I to tell someone else what they can and can't teach ...




I would never tell Steve Hayes or anyone else what they can or cannot teach. He is free to teach it, I'm free to criticize it. Given that Steve himself has never been shy about criticizing techniques and training methods that he doesn't care for, I'm not particularly worried about hurting his feelings.



ballen0351 said:


> ... and what's good or not.



If our training doesn't enable us to distinguish between what's effective and what is not, then we have a problem. If everything is equally valid, then why bother going to an instructor at all? Why not just stay at home and make up moves based on your favorite anime?




ballen0351 said:


> Yes grappling is grappling and again you may not like the technique but that doesn't mean it won't work.  I once went to a call where a woman beat an armed robber with a canned ham.  Is it the best technique nope but it worked.  Would his technique be the best?  Nope but it's also not the main focus of his style either so comparing his grappling to BJJ of course his will look less refined and less polished and even rudimentary but that doesn't mean it won't ever work.



If Hayes was just showing an unpolished move in need of some refinements, I wouldn't be worried about it. As you say, ground fighting isn't the main focus of Toshindo. If he just showed something simple that had a decent chance of success against an untrained grappler then I would give him credit for giving his students at least something to work with. You can see earlier in this thread where I gave credit to various Wing Chun and Aikido practitioners who did just that. The problem with this clip is that students who follow his instruction and imitate his movements are actually more likely to put themselves in a _worse _situation than if they had no instruction and just went on instinct. The martial version of the Hippocratic Oath should be: first, do no harm to yourself.



			
				ballen0351 said:
			
		

> No thats an opinion.  Im sure Hayes disagrees with your assessment.



Yep. Everything any of us says on here is an opinion. That said, not all opinions are created equal. If you want to know whether a certain ground grappling technique will work, you're better off trusting the opinions of people who over the years have had thousands of grappling matches with hundreds of opponents of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds (while learning from people who have had tens of thousands of grappling matches with thousands of opponents) than the opinion of someone without that sort of background who made up his own ground techniques and tested them only on his own compliant students.

Of course, that's just my opinion. 

Look, I understand that you are trying to steer us away from excess negativity, personal attacks and  style bashing. I agree with all that. I'm not disparaging Toshindo as a whole. I'm not denigrating Steve Hayes as a martial artist or a person. (I've even said nice things about him.)  I'm saying that in this particular case he is stepping outside of his expertise and doing his students a disservice.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I'd agree if he was teaching BJJ but he's not he's teaching his own style so if you want to use his style you should lean it.
> 
> 
> I think it's reckless to bash a style based on a 3 min YouTube clip.  Especially when by most accounts Hayes is a good martial artist.  I think without much more firsthand knowledge of the actual technique then he deserves the benefit of the doubt



Without first hand knowledge of guard passing? Your the one who bashed his style. I just said he had no idea what he was doing in that clip.


----------



## ballen0351

l





drop bear said:


> Without first hand knowledge of guard passing? Your the one who bashed his style. I just said he had no idea what he was doing in that clip.



I never based anyone's style.  And I didn't say you were bashing his style others here have


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No we still won't know of it works if you try it 20 times. Just because you can't get it to work doesn't mean somebody else can't get it to work


This is true; however, there is a difference between sound technique and unsound technique.  There are some moves that an elite level athlete can get to work, that just don't work for anyone else.  That doesn't make a technique sound.  Rather, it's a testimant to that person's athletic ability.

Conversely, some techniques are sound, whether you can perform them or not.  Given time to practice and train, a sound technique is one that will produce predictable and repeatable results.  There are some gimmicky techniques in BJJ.  But, and armbar from guard is fundamental, and anyone can do it reliably if you train for more than a year.

So, in the context of the Hayes video, his leglock is not sound technique if it requires extraordinarily rare and specific conditions in which to work.  The sweep to mount, however, that he invites is solid technique.  

And really, if you can't look at that video and the other one that Kman posted and see why one will work and one will not, you just lack the practical expertise.  I lack the context to understand the nuances of many striking styles.  It's just areas of expertise.  And for a student, it's not a problem.  An instructor, though, should really know what the heck he's talking about.  And if Hayes doesn't understand why his technique is flawed (likely based upon the demonstration of the technique, including his explanation of what he's doing and why) he shouldn't be teaching it.

All of that leading to the larger point that anti-grappling is a subset of grappling.  At some point, consulting with grapplers is critical.  As we've seen, those wing-chunners who have done this are immediately apparent.  Their techniques are more realistic and more likely to succeed, because they aren't invented in a vacuum.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I'd agree if he was teaching BJJ but he's not he's teaching his own style so if you want to use his style you should lean it.
> 
> 
> I think it's reckless to bash a style based on a 3 min YouTube clip. Especially when by most accounts Hayes is a good martial artist. I think without much more firsthand knowledge of the actual technique then he deserves the benefit of the doubt


Just for clarity, I'm not bashing his style and I haven't seen anyone else in this thread do so, either.  I am admittedly critical and skeptical of the specific technique shown in that video, as are others.  

I don't know anything about Hayes as a martial artist, but as you say, by most accounts he's a solid guy.  This technique, however, is crap.


----------



## Buka

As a little kid, all we did was  fight and play fight in various forms. We played war, first with sticks  then air rifles, we played with those little army men setting them up  all over the place, then we bombed them, burned them whatever. We made  spears and bow and arrows (the arrows went about a foot and a half but  it was the thought that counts) we had rock fights, snowball fights,  apple fights whatever. Everyone watched professional wrestling on  Saturdays at 11 a.m. then went back out and wrestled with each other -  using the same cool theatrics and noises.

(I actually have a point in all this, please bear with me)

We  also fought for real, which sucked when you weren't big. Big kids  pounded on everyone. The "mount" wasn't actually called anything, it was  just what was done to smaller kids. Mount, pin their wrists to the  ground or hold them in your grip, fill your mouth with saliva and slowly  let it drip out so the little kid could watch it come towards his face  real slow as he squirmed.(I was the bottom kid, not the top)

When  we wrestled, those of us with strong legs (strong in the world of  little kids) would wrap legs around the other kid and squeeze with all  your might. It was called a "scissors" , never anything else, and  sometimes it actually worked (little kids having skinny, weak ribs) It  went by the wayside by the time we reached thirteen and started playing  more sports and got interested in the oh so mysterious opposite sex.

I  never heard the term "scissors" again until I was in Martial Arts, then  it was a scissor takedown against the knees, ankles or waist. I don't  hear it much anymore. Then that video went up. At the top of the video  it says "scissor lock escape", which I found odd.  Then at the start of  the vid S Hayes says "he has this scissors lock on me here" but at the  opening credit thing it says "Passing Guard Variation" that's the only time the word "guard" is used, Hayes never mentions it.

My  point in all this - Hayes is the same age as me. Maybe he's referring  to a scissors instead of a guard, because they are not the same thing  and are not intended for use in the same way. I don't actually know  anyone who uses a leg scissors as a hold, as I said, they are completely  different. It would be like calling a headlock and guillotine the same  thing. Might look similar to a civilian, but not to any of us on this  forum whether we're grapplers or not.

At 1:45 of the video he says "he (opponent) may continue to push, trying to get me back where he can crush my ribs"

That  statement isn't one used in BJJ, at least not in my experience, it's  one used in conjunction with the old fashioned scissors lock I was  talking about as kids. Maybe Tony, Steve or Hanzou can correct me - is  any form of guard used as a squeeze against the ribs with the intention  of hurting the ribs?

So, I'm not sure where anything was  coming from in that class on that particular night. It's tough not  having the entire context.

That being said, I  love closed guard. I am somewhat an expert in people GETTING OUT OF MY  GUARD, because I go to guard a lot. I've had people doing it the way of  the second video, by elevating, dropping one knee and turning their body  and MY hips (I release and scramble before any leg lock) but not in the  way shown in the first, by laying back.  I've had it tried a couple  times, probably by accident on the part of my opponent, but I always  ended up in mount. Always.

But against a scissors lock?  Maybe, I don't know, I don't use a scissors lock, I use closed guard.  And again, I ain't that good a grappler, I'm not a complete slouch, I  can grapple, but that one there....not for me. And, again, I have no  idea what context any of this was in. I just wish they hadn't had the  opening credit of "passing guard variation."

The clip is four  minutes long. Maybe the class or seminar was a couple hours long. Kind  of a small, out of context thing to judge IMO. Especially if it wasn't  meant against the game of guard.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> l
> 
> I never based anyone's style.  And I didn't say you were bashing his style others here have



Only incidentally. The basic premise is non grapplers trying to counter grappling with bad grappling and calling that anti grappling. Which is dumb.

It is not a style thing it is solving the problem with half a solution thing. 

It is not even a bjj is the answer thing. It is a do the job properly thing.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Just for clarity, I'm not bashing his style and I haven't seen anyone else in this thread do so, either.  I am admittedly critical and skeptical of the specific technique shown in that video, as are others.
> 
> I don't know anything about Hayes as a martial artist, but as you say, by most accounts he's a solid guy.  This technique, however, is crap.



Well we kind of all are because we link bad grappling to styles. Ballen even did it that guard pass was what it was because Stephen Haynes is a ninja and not a bjjer.

But there is no reason everybody can't do good grappling it is cheap and available. Just some people are choosing not to.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> This is true; however, there is a difference between sound technique and unsound technique.  There are some moves that an elite level athlete can get to work, that just don't work for anyone else.  That doesn't make a technique sound.  Rather, it's a testimant to that person's athletic ability.


I agree totally.  I've never said otherwise.  My issues was someone posting his opinion as FACT that this could never work.  That's simply not the case.  I wouldn't try this technique because there are far better ways of accomplishing the same goal.  The same could be said for many techniques.  When I teach handcuffing I show several different ways some I like more then others.  Some I teach and have never used in real life I teach it because the training commission says I must.  Hayes himself said this wasn't the preferred technique.  So even he agrees with you.  However thay doesn't mean it can't work.  It reminds me of the kids football game where the QB take the ball and slowly walks right past the defense.  It was so unorthodox it should never work but it did because the other kids were like huh what's he doing.  Sometimes crazy things work.  I dressed like a clown once and picked up prostitutes. None of them thought I was a cop because I was dressed as a clown as stupid as it looked it worked.  


> Conversely, some techniques are sound, whether you can perform them or not.  Given time to practice and train, a sound technique is one that will produce predictable and repeatable results.  There are some gimmicky techniques in BJJ.  But, and armbar from guard is fundamental, and anyone can do it reliably if you train for more than a year.
> 
> So, in the context of the Hayes video, his leglock is not sound technique if it requires extraordinarily rare and specific conditions in which to work.  The sweep to mount, however, that he invites is solid technique.
> 
> And really, if you can't look at that video and the other one that Kman posted and see why one will work and one will not, you just lack the practical expertise.  I lack the context to understand the nuances of many striking styles.  It's just areas of expertise.  And for a student, it's not a problem.  An instructor, though, should really know what the heck he's talking about.  And if Hayes doesn't understand why his technique is flawed (likely based upon the demonstration of the technique, including his explanation of what he's doing and why) he shouldn't be teaching it.


Again it's not my place to tell him what he should and shouldn't be teaching.  His style his rules if I disagree I would not learn his style. 





> All of that leading to the larger point that anti-grappling is a subset of grappling.  At some point, consulting with grapplers is critical.  As we've seen, those wing-chunners who have done this are immediately apparent.  Their techniques are more realistic and more likely to succeed, because they aren't invented in a vacuum.



I agree but it doesn't makenit a fact that what he taught can't work


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Ballen even did it that guard pass was what it was because Stephen Haynes is a ninja and not a bjjer.
> .


He isnt a BJJer at least according to his bio.  Im not sure what your point is?


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> I would never tell Steve Hayes or anyone else what they can or cannot teach. He is free to teach it, I'm free to criticize it. Given that Steve himself has never been shy about criticizing techniques and training methods that he doesn't care for, I'm not particularly worried about hurting his feelings.


Im not worried about his feelings either there are some that have said he shouldn't be teaching it.  Its none of our concern what he teaches unless we are his students 


> If our training doesn't enable us to distinguish between what's effective and what is not, then we have a problem. If everything is equally valid, then why bother going to an instructor at all? Why not just stay at home and make up moves based on your favorite anime?


Well there is something to be said for not reinventing the wheel so thats why we go to an instructor.  But yes in my opinion one could make up their own movesif they wanted to.  After all every style started in that very way someone decided to make up moves. 




> If Hayes was just showing an unpolished move in need of some refinements, I wouldn't be worried about it. As you say, ground fighting isn't the main focus of Toshindo. If he just showed something simple that had a decent chance of success against an untrained grappler then I would give him credit for giving his students at least something to work with. You can see earlier in this thread where I gave credit to various Wing Chun and Aikido practitioners who did just that. The problem with this clip is that students who follow his instruction and imitate his movements are actually more likely to put themselves in a _worse _situation than if they had no instruction and just went on instinct. The martial version of the Hippocratic Oath should be: first, do no harm to yourself.


Again I think your worried about nothing.  The chances anyone in that class will ever need to use that move in real life are slim to none. 



> Yep. Everything any of us says on here is an opinion. That said, not all opinions are created equal. If you want to know whether a certain ground grappling technique will work, you're better off trusting the opinions of people who over the years have had thousands of grappling matches with hundreds of opponents of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds (while learning from people who have had tens of thousands of grappling matches with thousands of opponents) than the opinion of someone without that sort of background who made up his own ground techniques and tested them only on his own compliant students.


I agree but the only reason I entered this thread was someone claiming their opinion was fact and that is just not the case.  Ive never said all opinions are equal.  Thats a different topic all together


> Look, I understand that you are trying to steer us away from excess negativity, personal attacks and  style bashing. I agree with all that. I'm not disparaging Toshindo as a whole. I'm not denigrating Steve Hayes as a martial artist or a person. (I've even said nice things about him.)  I'm saying that in this particular case he is stepping outside of his expertise and doing his students a disservice.


He may be but thats not really our concernthats between him and his students


----------



## ballen0351

Bottom line is I agree its not the best move. I wouldnt try it.  BUT I also not willing to write it off as total crap either off a 3 min youtube clip.  Esp when the background of the man is generally accepted as positive.  You want to technically critique what hes doing that good we can all learn from it.  But to laugh or make fun of, or belittle the man or the style which some have done here isn't acceptable in my opinion.  With that we can go round and round here as long as you want but I think I just agree to disagree.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> But against a scissors lock?  Maybe, I don't know, I don't use a scissors lock, I use closed guard.  And again, I ain't that good a grappler, I'm not a complete slouch, I  can grapple, but that one there....not for me. And, again, I have no  idea what context any of this was in. I just wish they hadn't had the  opening credit of "passing guard variation."
> 
> The clip is four  minutes long. Maybe the class or seminar was a couple hours long. Kind  of a small, out of context thing to judge IMO. Especially if it wasn't  meant against the game of guard.



I think you're giving them far too much credit. That clip was pretty heavily advertised by Toshindo as a guard pass variation until it was ridiculed throughout the web, and the comments were disabled. It's also supposedly featured in Hayes' DVD series on Toshindo ground fighting (Earth) techniques. So clearly, Toshindo and Hayes thought it was a super-awesome Ninja technique that the world should see. 

I'm not sure the distinction between the guard or body scissors matters a whole lot. I've squeezed people in the ribs with the guard before, just to add a bit more pressure. Usually only against untrained people. Also pushing them backwards with your hips is a method of posture control while in the position, so while you typically want to pull someone into guard, pushing them away is a strategy as well.

I would just note that Hayes was kind of blending aspects of the two together. Maybe he views the guard as being the same thing as the scissor hold? Either way, its a very flawed technique.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> I can say as someone that Broke his tailbone before slipping on the ice and falling onto stairs that it HURTS.  If I were to use that technique I wouldn't aim for the meat of the butt I'd aim for the bone in the crack



:lol:

Yeah, that's about the response I anticipated.


----------



## geezer

Jeez Louise, enough about that Hayes clip already. We've established that _Hanzou is a rude son of a gun_, whereas others are more careful and condsiderate in their comments. Still if you are teaching stuff that isn't right-on, you have to expect criticism. Once in a while I've essentially done what Hayes did. You know, strayed from what I knew well and showed stuff that I only had a half baked grasp of. And it was _wrong_ to do that, at least without doing as _Danny T_. suggested and presenting openly as "stuff I'm still just working on". One time I even injured myself. Guess I got my come-uppance, eh?

Anyway, I'm kinda glad _Hanzou_ posted the Hayes clip and the follow-up with the other ninja group. It really opened my eyes, and made this thread really lively! Admit it guys, _Hanzou_ is a little edgy, but give him some credit. He makes this place interesting.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yeah, that's about the response I anticipated.



OK H_anzou,_ that was totally uncalled for. --I just snorted my coffee out my nose and all over my monitor. :lol2:


----------



## ballen0351

geezer said:


> Anyway, I'm kinda glad _Hanzou_ posted the Hayes clip and the follow-up with the other ninja group. It really opened my eyes, and made this thread really lively! Admit it guys, _Hanzou_ is a little edgy, but give him some credit. He makes this place interesting.



Naa but Im not allowed to say what he is on the forum


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yeah, that's about the response I anticipated.


And?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I would just like to point out that Hayes is the founder of To Shin Do and has no affiliation with the Bujinkan or any ninjutsu organization for that matter.

Also the person in the second video who was showing what was wrong with what Steven Hayes did is Simon Yeo who is a Bujinkan member (Shihan) and I believe is now a Roger Gracie Brazilian Jiujitsu black belt. (might still be brown)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

What Geezer said....


It is nice to see the video by Stephen Hayes and critique as to why someone who has grappling skills (predominantly) BJJ doesn't like it.  Then to see Simo Yeo's take and then two more clips of a similar yet slightly different move where again grappling exponents explain why they liked it.  Tony did a nice breakdown of the one clip and explained that while it looked similar it was very different and because of that very effective!  These are things we can all learn from!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The only thing that would be even better is if Mr. Hayes or a To Shin Do instructor was here to explain their thinking on the technique so that we could get some even clearer understanding of why he did it that way.  Maybe someone could invite Steven Hayes to come and join the conversation...


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I agree totally. I've never said otherwise. My issues was someone posting his opinion as FACT that this could never work. That's simply not the case. I wouldn't try this technique because there are far better ways of accomplishing the same goal. The same could be said for many techniques. When I teach handcuffing I show several different ways some I like more then others. Some I teach and have never used in real life I teach it because the training commission says I must. Hayes himself said this wasn't the preferred technique. So even he agrees with you. However thay doesn't mean it can't work. It reminds me of the kids football game where the QB take the ball and slowly walks right past the defense. It was so unorthodox it should never work but it did because the other kids were like huh what's he doing. Sometimes crazy things work. I dressed like a clown once and picked up prostitutes. None of them thought I was a cop because I was dressed as a clown as stupid as it looked it worked.
> 
> Again it's not my place to tell him what he should and shouldn't be teaching. His style his rules if I disagree I would not learn his style.
> 
> I agree but it doesn't makenit a fact that what he taught can't work


I think we can draw some pretty solid conclusions based upon areas of expertise.  It's specious to suggest that our life experiences can't inform our opinions.  Us BJJers don't know everything.  But if i'm an expert in anything, it's the guard.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I think we can draw some pretty solid conclusions based upon areas of expertise.  It's specious to suggest that our life experiences can't inform our opinions.


Right I have no problem with opinions when presented as such but to claim you opinion in an undeniable fact well Ill disagree   


> Us BJJers don't know everything.


lol could have fooled me with some of the stuff I read on here


> But if i'm an expert in anything, it's the guard.



But are you an expert in To Shin Do?  Since thats what he teaching.  And can you make a really informed opinion from a 3 min clip.  Id say you would have a much better leg to stand on if you say then entire class or then entire lesson including any corrections he was giving to his students during the application process.  For example Ive watched a high level Goju teacher give a demo and he held his hand a certain way. Then during the application portion he explained his wrist is messed up and he cant move his hand into the correct position but he corrected us to do the technique the correct way even though he physically cant. So perhaps Hayes explained the technique further in more detail later and its not on the you tube clip.  OR perhaps he didnt and your right since I wasnt there I dont know


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> But are you an expert in To Shin Do?  Since thats what he teaching.



Not really. He's teaching a Toshindo technique against the guard, which is *not* a Toshindo technique. The problem is that if you understand how the guard works, you realize that Toshindo's solution is faulty and inapplicable for its proposed purpose; To defeat a skilled grappler who has you in a leg hold.



> And can you make a really informed opinion from a 3 min clip.  Id say you would have a much better leg to stand on if you say then entire class or then entire lesson including any corrections he was giving to his students during the application process.  For example Ive watched a high level Goju teacher give a demo and he held his hand a certain way. Then during the application portion he explained his wrist is messed up and he cant move his hand into the correct position but he corrected us to do the technique the correct way even though he physically cant. So perhaps Hayes explained the technique further in more detail later and its not on the you tube clip.  OR perhaps he didnt and your right since I wasnt there I dont know



Considering that his students began doing the technique exactly as he performed it, your theory here is absolute nonsense.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Right I have no problem with opinions when presented as such but to claim you opinion in an undeniable fact well Ill disagree
> 
> lol could have fooled me with some of the stuff I read on here
> 
> 
> But are you an expert in To Shin Do?  Since thats what he teaching.  And can you make a really informed opinion from a 3 min clip.  Id say you would have a much better leg to stand on if you say then entire class or then entire lesson including any corrections he was giving to his students during the application process.  For example Ive watched a high level Goju teacher give a demo and he held his hand a certain way. Then during the application portion he explained his wrist is messed up and he cant move his hand into the correct position but he corrected us to do the technique the correct way even though he physically cant. So perhaps Hayes explained the technique further in more detail later and its not on the you tube clip.  OR perhaps he didnt and your right since I wasnt there I dont know



So that guard pass is a to shin do thing. And not that Stephen just can't grapple. The style is at fault.

We can't make an assessment on what we haven't seen. Only what we have. And three minutes is plenty.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Not really. He's teaching a Toshindo technique against the guard, which is *not* a Toshindo technique.



How do you know what is and isn't a To shin do technique?  He's the founder and he's teaching it so..... If he claimed it was something else I missed it in the clip. 


> The problem is that if you understand how the guard works, you realize that Toshindo's solution is faulty and inapplicable for its proposed purpose; To defeat a skilled grappler who has you in a leg hold.


I'm not sure why you keep assuming he's going to use it against a skilled grappler.  As you said it won't work on a skilled grappler but a not so skilled one like maybe someone that learned grappling on the internet for 25 bucks a month by watching videos.



> Considering that his students began doing the technique exactly as he performed it, your theory here is absolute nonsense.



No what's nonsense is you think you know what happened in the rest of the class since all you saw was a 3 min clip.  But whatever man you believe what you want I don't care since I don't train To shin do and don't know Mr Hayes and really don't care what you think or believe.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> So that guard pass is a to shin do thing. And not that Stephen just can't grapple. The style is at fault.
> 
> We can't make an assessment on what we haven't seen. Only what we have. And three minutes is plenty.


I have no idea what kind of thing it is since I don't train in To shin do.  Three min is plenty bit not the whole story.  But again I'll leave you boys be.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Right I have no problem with opinions when presented as such but to claim you opinion in an undeniable fact well Ill disagree


Were this only true.  As I said before, the technique shown is questionable.  That is a fact.  





> lol could have fooled me with some of the stuff I read on here


You see what you want to see, and everything else is invisible to you. 





> But are you an expert in To Shin Do? Since thats what he teaching.


No





> And can you make a really informed opinion from a 3 min clip.


In this case, yes.





> Id say you would have a much better leg to stand on if you say then entire class or then entire lesson including any corrections he was giving to his students during the application process.


In your opinion.  Right?   You're just sharing your opinion here, and as you acknowledge knowing nothing about grappling, your opinion on this topic is uninformed by your own admission.  So, the real question here is why you're refusing to listen to people who actually have an opinion on the topic that is informed.  Why are you more willing to write stories about unlikely scenarios in which Hayes has a hidden disability than accept other peoples' expert opinions?  Seems suspicious to me.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> How do you know what is and isn't a To shin do technique?  He's the founder and he's teaching it so..... If he claimed it was something else I missed it in the clip.



To-Shin Do | Ground Fighting I
To-Shin Do | Ground Fighting II
To-Shin Do | 30 Essential Ground Skills

If you notice, the only time Guard is employed in Toshindo is to train how to escape it. In Bjj, the Guard is an essential position that contains submissions, transitions, sweeps, control, etc. Bjj teaches you not only how to escape the Guard, but also use it in self defense. Unless I'm missing something here, Toshindo doesn't teach you any of that. They simply teach you how to escape the position. Essentially, Toshindo treats the Guard the way Bjj exponents treat the headlock.



> I'm not sure why you keep assuming he's going to use it against a skilled grappler.  As you said it won't work on a skilled grappler but a not so skilled one like maybe someone that learned grappling on the internet for 25 bucks a month by watching videos.



So essentially you're saying that if a Toshindo person winds up in the Guard of a Bjj blue belt and above or an experienced MMA fighter they're doomed?



> No what's nonsense is you think you know what happened in the rest of the class since all you saw was a 3 min clip.  But whatever man you believe what you want I don't care since I don't train To shin do and don't know Mr Hayes and really don't care what you think or believe.



Well I know that Hayes doesn't have a wrist injury or some disability. If he did, I highly doubt they would include that footage in a training video series that they're charging $300 for. :uhoh:


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea what kind of thing it is since I don't train in To shin do.  Three min is plenty bit not the whole story.  But again I'll leave you boys be.



OK if at some stage it turns out that he was distracted by the students,has some debilitating injury,is doing some completely different move to a guard pass,qualified all of those moves later on,was showing how to fight a guy who is only trained on you tube and that there may be somone out there that I could actually catch with that move.

I will reconsider my opinion.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Bottom line is I agree its not the best move. I wouldnt try it.  BUT I also not willing to write it off as total crap either off a 3 min youtube clip.



I would assume that the 3 min video is a summary of the technique and the process of its development and a display of the finished product.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Were this only true.  As I said before, the technique shown is questionable.  That is a fact.  You see what you want to see, and everything else is invisible to you. NoIn this case, yes.In your opinion.  Right?   You're just sharing your opinion here, and as you acknowledge knowing nothing about grappling, your opinion on this topic is uninformed by your own admission.  So, the real question here is why you're refusing to listen to people who actually have an opinion on the topic that is informed.  Why are you more willing to write stories about unlikely scenarios in which Hayes has a hidden disability than accept other peoples' expert opinions?  Seems suspicious to me.


I've listened to your opinion and agreed with it on its face it's not the best idea to try.  But your opinion is just that.  My opinion is I can't make a complete judgement on something from a 3 min clip on YouTube.  If that's it and there is nothing more then so be it.  But as I said in my experience sometimes things are not as they appear like an injury or or disability which are not "unlikely" since I've seen it happen.  I also don't know anyone here to consider them an "expert" are you an expert?  Perhaps you are but I don't know you well enough to make that call.  I certainly don't know other "experts" posting here.  So I'm sorry I don't bow down and accept what is being put out here as fact by strangers on the internet.  Others have made the EXPERT claim recently like the expert woman's MMA fighter from across the pond that was just called out and hasn't been back since.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> To-Shin Do | Ground Fighting I
> To-Shin Do | Ground Fighting II
> To-Shin Do | 30 Essential Ground Skills
> 
> If you notice, the only time Guard is employed in Toshindo is to train how to escape it. In Bjj, the Guard is an essential position that contains submissions, transitions, sweeps, control, etc. Bjj teaches you not only how to escape the Guard, but also use it in self defense. Unless I'm missing something here, Toshindo doesn't teach you any of that. They simply teach you how to escape the position. Essentially, Toshindo treats the Guard the way Bjj exponents treat the headlock.


And?  I'm not sure what you are getting at?  I never said BJJ guys were not good at the guard I didn't know that was the question.  And since To shin do isn't a grappling art I'm not shocked they are less invested in ground game.  





> So essentially you're saying that if a Toshindo person winds up in the Guard of a Bjj blue belt and above or an experienced MMA fighter they're doomed?


I'd imagine if alot of styles ended up in the guard of an experienced BJJ or MMA fighter they would be in trouble. That's not their strong suit.  That's why I train to not end up in the guard.  That's also why even in the clip he said the technique wasn't the first choice perhaps they have other ways to pass the guard.  I know a few ways none are like what Hayes shows but as I said My plan is to not end up there in the first place.  That's probably a to shin do guys plan as well but since I don't train In it I really Don't know


> Well I know that Hayes doesn't have a wrist injury or some disability. If he did, I highly doubt they would include that footage in a training video series that they're charging $300 for. :uhoh:



Well I've seen other videos of highly respected Karate guys that have injuries that still put out tapes and books and fly all over the world doing seminars with bad body parts so......


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> And?  I'm not sure what you are getting at?



That your arguement about the Guard being part of the Toshindo system is false.



> I never said BJJ guys were not good at the guard I didn't know that was the question.



I was showing you the difference between a system that uses Guard purely for learning to escape/avoid it, versus a system that uses Guard as an essential fighting position. 



> And since To shin do isn't a grappling art I'm not shocked they are less invested in ground game.



Actually it is a grappling art, since it has throws, holds, and ground fighting. The ground fighting was kind of amusing, but that's besides the point. 



> I'd imagine if alot of styles ended up in the guard of an experienced BJJ or MMA fighter they would be in trouble. That's not their strong suit.  That's why I train to not end up in the guard.  That's also why even in the clip he said the technique wasn't the first choice perhaps they have other ways to pass the guard.  I know a few ways none are like what Hayes shows but as I said My plan is to not end up there in the first place.  That's probably a to shin do guys plan as well but since I don't train In it I really Don't know



Clearly its not, since they devote an entire section of their groundfighting system to escaping and countering the Guard. It's pretty clear that their intention is to teach you how to escape the Guard of a skilled practitioner. The fact that they fail at it isn't really the point.


> Well I've seen other videos of highly respected Karate guys that have injuries that still put out tapes and books and fly all over the world doing seminars with bad body parts so......



Yeah, but that isn't the case here, since Hayes clearly wasn't injured.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> That your arguement about the Guard being part of the Toshindo system is false.
> 
> 
> 
> I was showing you the difference between a system that uses Guard purely for learning to escape/avoid it, versus a system that uses Guard as an essential fighting position.


You must have misunderstood Ive never said the guard was part of the Toshindo system.  I have no idea what is in their system since before this thread I never even knew it existed.  I said I assume what hayes is teaching the escape is part of his system since he invented the system 



> Actually it is a grappling art, since it has throws, holds, and ground fighting. The ground fighting was kind of amusing, but that's besides the point.


If you say so. I have all of that in Goju but I dont consider it a grappling art its an art that has grappling in it.  



> Clearly its not, since they devote an entire section of their groundfighting system to escaping and countering the Guard. It's pretty clear that their intention is to teach you how to escape the Guard of a skilled practitioner. The fact that they fail at it isn't really the point.


Again if you say so.  I dont know anthing about Toshindo other then a 3 min youtube clip so If you know more about the goals of To shin do very well then. 


> Yeah, but that isn't the case here, since Hayes clearly wasn't injured.


I didnt say he was I said sometimes things are not what they appear.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I've listened to your opinion and agreed with it on its face it's not the best idea to try.  But your opinion is just that.  My opinion is I can't make a complete judgement on something from a 3 min clip on YouTube.  If that's it and there is nothing more then so be it.  But as I said in my experience sometimes things are not as they appear like an injury or or disability which are not "unlikely" since I've seen it happen.  I also don't know anyone here to consider them an "expert" are you an expert?  Perhaps you are but I don't know you well enough to make that call.  I certainly don't know other "experts" posting here.  So I'm sorry I don't bow down and accept what is being put out here as fact by strangers on the internet.  Others have made the EXPERT claim recently like the expert woman's MMA fighter from across the pond that was just called out and hasn't been back since.


Accusing me of fraud?  Come on, ballen.  That's low.  

But I'm not the only one drawing the same conclusion.  I know you like to poke at certain people on the boards, myself included.  But consider that when you imply that I'm a fraud and suggest that my "EXPERT claim" is equivalent to DonnaTKD's, you're also lumping in Brian VanCise, Tony Dismukes, Drop Bear, Hanzou, Punisher and the other people who share the same "expert" opinions based upon their similar, actual experience.  Whether you think I'm actually a competent purple belt in BJJ or not, I still wonder why you refuse to accept the considered opinions of people who are more credible and well respected in this particular area.  It doesn't make sense to me, particularly when you're more than happy to accept without question the opinions of people who admit to being as unfamiliar with the situations in question as you are.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> And?  I'm not sure what you are getting at?  I never said BJJ guys were not good at the guard I didn't know that was the question.  And since To shin do isn't a grappling art I'm not shocked they are less invested in ground game.
> I'd imagine if alot of styles ended up in the guard of an experienced BJJ or MMA fighter they would be in trouble. That's not their strong suit.  *That's why I train to not end up in the guard.  *That's also why even in the clip he said the technique wasn't the first choice perhaps they have other ways to pass the guard.  I know a few ways none are like what Hayes shows but as I said *My plan is to not end up there in the first place.*  That's probably a to shin do guys plan as well but since I don't train In it I really Don't know


Living here in Seattle, my plan is just to not have an earthquake.  I know we're due a big one up here, and I also know that they suggest having an emergency kit with water, food, flashlight and other essentials in case there is one.  But, my plan is to just not have an earthquake.   Of course, if there is a bad earthquake, I'm screwed because my plan really isn't a plan.    


> Well I've seen other videos of highly respected Karate guys that have injuries that still put out tapes and books and fly all over the world doing seminars with bad body parts so......


The injury thing is ridiculous.  I wish you'd just let that go.  There's nothing to suggest that Stephen Hayes has a hidden disability in that video.

Regarding training to avoid the ground, that's been addressed several times and summarized by many different posters.   The gist of it is that it can work very well, provided that the system was developed outside of a vacuum, at least in consultation with competent grapplers, and instructed by people who know what they're doing.  

Going back to the Hayes video and others, the issue isn't that people are training specifically to counter BJJ or other ground fighting styles. Nor is there any problem with the idea that "the ground" isn't a good place to be in a fight.  The disconnect is whether or not anti-grappling is a form of grappling.  Most people believe that it is grappling, and so to be an effective anti-grappler, you really need some fundamental skills as a grappler.  Avoiding the takedown, improving your position on the ground so that you can regain your feet, and protecting yourself while on the ground are all grappling skills.  So, if you are a kung fu guy and just invent your own style, you're likely to come up with techniques like the Hayes sweep to a leg lock, that look good on paper, but won't actually work.

That's it.  The grappling contingent here has shown some examples of wing chun guys who do seem to be teaching competent anti-grappling.  The difference being that they actually consult with grapplers, and so their anti-grappling looks fundamentally different.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Accusing me of fraud?  Come on, ballen.  That's low.


I didnt "accuse" you of anything.  I said its the internet stranger things have happened.



> But I'm not the only one drawing the same conclusion.  I know you like to poke at certain people on the boards, myself included.  But consider that when you imply that I'm a fraud and suggest that my "EXPERT claim" is equivalent to DonnaTKD's, you're also lumping in Brian VanCise, Tony Dismukes, Drop Bear, Hanzou, Punisher and the other people who share the same "expert" opinions based upon their similar, actual experience.  Whether you think I'm actually a competent purple belt in BJJ or not, I still wonder why you refuse to accept the considered opinions of people who are more credible and well respected in this particular area.  It doesn't make sense to me, particularly when you're more than happy to accept without question the opinions of people who admit to being as unfamiliar with the situations in question as you are.


Im not sure what you think I havent accepted?  I agreed it wasnt the best technique.  I said its not a FACT it could never work.  If your expert opinion is its a fact it could never work well that is false.    I dont lump anyone into any group didnt mean to hurt your feelings but I didnt realize it was Steves way or else (well I guess I did know Ive been here long enough).   Very well sir You won the internets for the day Congrats Sir :wink2:


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Living here in Seattle, my plan is just to not have an earthquake.  I know we're due a big one up here, and I also know that they suggest having an emergency kit with water, food, flashlight and other essentials in case there is one.  But, my plan is to just not have an earthquake.   Of course, if there is a bad earthquake, I'm screwed because my plan really isn't a plan.


Well Ive made it this far in life with never ending up in the guard so.......I also never said I couldnt get out I do dabble in BJJ and Judo.  The simple fact is I plan on avoiding any physical confrontation period.  Its not hard to do.  I havent been in a fight since I got out of the military other then at work.  


> The injury thing is ridiculous.  I wish you'd just let that go.  There's nothing to suggest that Stephen Hayes has a hidden disability in that video.


Never said he was injured I said you dont know the whole story from a 3 min clip.  You let it go if you want you brought it up again


> Regarding training to avoid the ground, that's been addressed several times and summarized by many different posters.


right more internet experts got it.


> The gist of it is that it can work very well, provided that the system was developed outside of a vacuum, at least in consultation with competent grapplers, and instructed by people who know what they're doing.


ok


> Going back to the Hayes video and others, the issue isn't that people are training specifically to counter BJJ or other ground fighting styles. Nor is there any problem with the idea that "the ground" isn't a good place to be in a fight.  The disconnect is whether or not anti-grappling is a form of grappling.  Most people believe that it is grappling, and so to be an effective anti-grappler, you really need some fundamental skills as a grappler.  Avoiding the takedown, improving your position on the ground so that you can regain your feet, and protecting yourself while on the ground are all grappling skills.  So, if you are a kung fu guy and just invent your own style, you're likely to come up with techniques like the Hayes sweep to a leg lock, that look good on paper, but won't actually work.


ok


> That's it.  The grappling contingent here has shown some examples of wing chun guys who do seem to be teaching competent anti-grappling.  The difference being that they actually consult with grapplers, and so their anti-grappling looks fundamentally different.


ok

Ive never said anything different.  Hanzo came in making reckless comments about a man and his style.  At first he refused to provide any technical reasons just that he and his teacher had a good laugh at his expense.  Then said his opinion is a FACT.  Thats nonsense.  I found his comments distasteful and rude so I told him.  Then we had a conversation (which is what we do on a forum) about the techniqe between several grapplers about the technique which I dont disagree with. Even still its not a FACT it could never work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Yeah, no need to waste more pixels on the "fact" vs "opinion" sidetrack as far as I'm concerned.

Just about everything we say here is an opinion. Some opinions are better informed than others. Some folks feel comfortable labeling very well-founded opinions as facts, others do not. I don't care that much either way.

As far as whether a technique "could never work" or not - it's really a matter of percentages. No technique works all the time. Every technique can conceivably work given the right circumstances. A really, really good technique might work 70% of the time in a broad range of scenarios. A really, really bad technique might only work under very limited circumstances and even then have a 5% chance of improving your situation and a 50% chance of worsening your situation. Most techniques fall in-between those extremes. You can argue about whether or not it's sensible to say those really bad techniques could never work, but I don't think it's worth getting heated up over.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Well Ive made it this far in life with never ending up in the guard so.......I also never said I couldnt get out I do dabble in BJJ and Judo.  The simple fact is I plan on avoiding any physical confrontation period.  Its not hard to do.  I havent been in a fight since I got out of the military other then at work.
> 
> Never said he was injured I said you dont know the whole story from a 3 min clip.  You let it go if you want you brought it up again
> 
> right more internet experts got it.
> 
> ok
> 
> ok
> 
> ok
> 
> Ive never said anything different.  Hanzo came in making reckless comments about a man and his style.  At first he refused to provide any technical reasons just that he and his teacher had a good laugh at his expense.  Then said his opinion is a FACT.  Thats nonsense.  I found his comments distasteful and rude so I told him.  Then we had a conversation (which is what we do on a forum) about the techniqe between several grapplers about the technique which I dont disagree with. Even still its not a FACT it could never work.



It's funny to me that on one hand you say you agree with me, but on the other suggest I'm a fraud and can't manage to avoid childish insults.  It's not "Steve's" way.  It's bio mechanics and a basic understanding of the position.  Heck, you just said you agree with me, yourself.   

My feelings aren't hurt.  I just genuinely don't understand you.  You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next,  you agree with me, but then insult me.  You acknowledge that I'm right and then tell me I'm a fraud.   You say you never disagreed with me, and then tell me I'm still wrong.  

It's not hurt feelings.  It's confusion.  

For what it's worth, that the technique is fatally flawed.  If someone could make that technique work, it would be in spite of the technique, and not because of it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Double post


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> ... on the other suggest I'm a fraud ...



I don't think that ballen0351 is seriously pushing the idea that you (or I or any of us) is particularly likely to be a fraud. I think he's just pointing out that this is the internet and for all he knows, we're all dogs.

Personally, I have a certain degree of confidence in my ability to guess whether particular posters here are as knowledgeable as they say they are. It's an educated guess - but it's still just a guess. The farther the style being discussed gets from my experience, the less educated my guesses get. If we had a bunch of Choy Li Fut  practitioners arguing over some esoteric aspect of CMA, I wouldn't necessarily know whether or not I could accept all their claims of being experts on the subject.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think he's just pointing out that this is the internet and for all he knows, we're all dogs.



That was a bit ruff.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

RTKDCMB said:


> That was a bit ruff.



Well, it seemed folks were getting a little hot under the collar.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It's funny to me that on one hand you say you agree with me, but on the other suggest I'm a fraud and can't manage to avoid childish insults.  It's not "Steve's" way.  It's bio mechanics and a basic understanding of the position.  Heck, you just said you agree with me, yourself.
> 
> My feelings aren't hurt.  I just genuinely don't understand you.  You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next,  you agree with me, but then insult me.  You acknowledge that I'm right and then tell me I'm a fraud.   You say you never disagreed with me, and then tell me I'm still wrong.
> 
> It's not hurt feelings.  It's confusion.
> 
> For what it's worth, that the technique is fatally flawed.  If someone could make that technique work, it would be in spite of the technique, and not because of it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I never called anyone a fraud I said it's the internet for all you know I'm a 12 year old girl or a 89 year old man.  So when someone makes claims of any "expertise" I don't give it the same standing I would. If I personally knew you.  Not saying your a fraud I just view internet forums with a grain of salt.  It's not that bad here but other forums I frequent like Officer.com have a high number of wanna be posters.   Some are good some are not.  I believed Donna for example for a while she or he  fooled me.  If you take that as me calling you a fraud I apologize.  It wansnt the case.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Ive never said anything different.  Hanzo came in making reckless comments about a man and his style.


 
Absolutely false. I said nothing disparaging about Hayes or Toshindo in general.



> At first he refused to provide any technical reasons just that he and his teacher had a good laugh at his expense.



Also false. Immediately after posting the initial video, I posted a video critique from Bujinkan exponents who understand ground fighting.



> Then said his opinion is a FACT.  Thats nonsense.  I found his comments distasteful and rude so I told him.  Then we had a conversation (which is what we do on a forum) about the techniqe between several grapplers about the technique which I dont disagree with. Even still its not a FACT it could never work.



Like I said, the only way that would work on its intended target is if the person placing you in guard is literally asleep, or purposely letting you lean back so that they can mount and pound you.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You must have misunderstood Ive never said the guard was part of the Toshindo system.  I have no idea what is in their system since before this thread I never even knew it existed.  I said I assume what hayes is teaching the escape is part of his system since he invented the system



No, you asked how did I know that the Guard wasn't in Toshindo. That was a response to an earlier post where you said that since none of us do Toshindo, we have no right to question Hayes' technique. Please get your story right. 



> If you say so. I have all of that in Goju but I dont consider it a grappling art its an art that has grappling in it.



Goju has ground fighting? Since when?



> Again if you say so.  I dont know anthing about Toshindo other then a 3 min youtube clip so If you know more about the goals of To shin do very well then.



I don't need to know the goals of Toshindo to know that the goal of the technique in that video is to counter the Guard. 



> I didnt say he was I said sometimes things are not what they appear.



This is not one of those times.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> No, you asked how did I know that the Guard wasn't in Toshindo. That was a response to an earlier post where you said that since none of us do Toshindo, we have no right to question Hayes' technique. Please get your story right.


You may need to brush up on your reading comprehension 


> Goju has ground fighting? Since when?


Umm since it's inception.  


> I don't need to know the goals of Toshindo to know that the goal of the technique in that video is to counter the Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not one of those times.


Nonsense


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> You may need to brush up on your reading comprehension



Um no. Simply go back and read through your own responses. I agree that they are a convoluted mess, but you did write them, so you should be able to understand them.



> Umm since it's inception.



Let me guess; Hidden in the kata right? 



> Nonsense



So you're continuing to run with your ridiculous and baseless theory that Hayes was somehow disabled or injured during that video?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Absolutely false. I said nothing disparaging about Hayes or Toshindo in general.


umm ok


> sure your technique is sound before you publish a video about it and *make yourself (and your art) look silly*.​





> Why shouldn't we criticize, find fault, and *belittle that which deserves those things *





> Toshindo isn't going to change that technique because of criticism,....We're way passed that point now, so all we can do now is point out how wrong it is.


here was a shot at Dillman


> You must be a big fan of George Dillman. :lol:





> So we tried the *Toshindo technique* in class today, *and its actually worse than I anticipated it to be*.





> I showed the video to my instructor (a three stripe black belt), and he said *it was literally one of the worst guard pass attempts he's ever seen*.





> We had a pretty good laugh about the whole thing.





> It even got the Martial Fail of the week;





> there was far more in *Hayes' video that was laughable* or flawed besides the actual technique. *The stupid and pointless knee to the buttocks *


here you even admited it​


> *which is why I "bagged" on Hayes*. There's no reason to create a half-baked technique






> *There's no reason to embarrass yourself* and your style





> unfortunately makes people question his entire system of Martial Arts




I can keep going but you get the idea.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Let me guess; Hidden in the kata right?
> 
> ?


So now your going to bash Goju next huh

Im done with this nonsense feel free to continue to bash styles if you want


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> umm ok



Let's run through this step by step so there's no more confusion;



> _sure your technique is sound before you publish a video about it and _*make yourself (and your art) look silly.*


The technique isn't sound. That has been established. Hayes and Toshindo was made to look silly because said technique wasn't sound, and it threw into question other aspects of Toshindo instruction. 

Imagine if the opposite occurred? Imagine if Hayes popped up with an effective, flashy, high percentage move against the staple of several grappling styles? The opinion of Toshindo and Ninjutsu in general would be greatly improved.



> _Why shouldn't we criticize, find fault, and _*belittle that which deserves those things*


Yes, why shouldn't we? Dillman popped up with a ridiculous Chi knockout technique that was utter and complete nonsense. He was criticized, belittled, and his stature in the MA community was greatly diminished.






Frankly he deserved every bit of it.



> I can keep going but you get the idea.



I get the idea that you're being over-emotional and highly defensive for no valid reason.

Prime example:



ballen0351 said:


> So now your going to bash Goju next huh



Ah yes, pointing out that its hidden within kata is "bashing" Goju-Ryu.:sadsong:


----------



## geezer

ballen0351 said:


> ...here was a shot at Dillman



People say Dillman started out as "the real thing", but with some of the questionable stuff he later promoted like the "no touch knockout" I'd say he has only himself to blame for the critism he gets. It's not style bashing to express disapproval of people who make outrageous claims or promote impractical techniques. As long as it's a debate about technique and not a personal attack, I don't see the problem.

Besides, we can't be so "thin-skinned" people. I may see Hayes as a medeocre martial artist who is more about self promotion and marketing than anything. Others have said the similar stuff about my old Chinese sifu. Sometimes they were right. _Not_ about his being mediocre, but about his shameless self-promotion. So what? People have a right to their opinions as long as they don't cross the line into character assasination.

Regarding Dillman:  



The videoclip really needs no  further comment.

Edit: Dang, While I was digging this up _Hanzou_ beat me to it. I really have to get faster on the "submit" key!


----------



## ballen0351

geezer said:


> People say Dillman started out as "the real thing", but with some of the questionable stuff he later promoted like the "no touch knockout" I'd say he has only himself to blame for the critism he gets. It's not style bashing to express disapproval of people who make outrageous claims or promote impractical techniques. As long as it's a debate about technique and not a personal attack, I don't see the problem.
> 
> Besides, we can't be so "thin-skinned" people. I may see Hayes as a medeocre martial artist who is more about self promotion and marketing than anything. Others have said the similar stuff about my old Chinese sifu. Sometimes they were right. _Not_ about his being mediocre, but about his hameless self-promotion. So what? People have a right to their opinions as long as they don't cross the line into character assasination.
> 
> Regarding Dillman:
> 
> 
> 
> The videoclip really needs no  further comment.
> 
> Edit: Dang, While I was digging this up _Hanzou_ beat me to it. I really have to get faster on the "submit" key!


doesnt matter this isnt bullshido and style bashing and fraud busting wasnt allowed but maybe it is now I dont know Ive been gone for a few months coaching and started college so perhaps it is now


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Yeah, Dillman may have been a talented martial artist in his prime, but at some point he wandered into territory which is either self-delusion or conscious fraud. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt and I respect ballen0351's insistence on doing so. Nevertheless there comes a point where there is no more doubt to give someone the benefit of.

Edit - I'm not bashing whatever style of karate that Dillman practices. For all I know it's a great system. I'm not even saying that he is necessarily a conscious fraud. I've seen several cases where an instructor and students apparently came to honestly believe that they possessed magical powers through some sort of suggestibility feedback loop. Maybe this is one of those cases. The fact remains that they don't have magical powers.


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> Nevertheless there comes a point where there is no more doubt to give someone the benefit of.


So then its free to just bash the guy?  Or do we just move on and ignore him and let him fade away?  Dillman was purposly brought into this thread to take a cheap shot. He was not mentioned to provide value to the thread


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> So then its free to just bash the guy?  Or do we just move on and ignore him and let him fade away?  Dillman was purposly brought into this thread to take a cheap shot. He was not mentioned to provide value to the thread



You have a good point in that he's really not relevant to this thread and Hanzou was taking a bit of a cheap shot by bringing him up. Probably the best way to move on and ignore him and let him fade away is to not bother defending him, since that does tend to make people think "are you kidding?" and go looking for evidence that he shouldn't be defended.


----------



## ballen0351

Tony Dismukes said:


> You have a good point in that he's really not relevant to this thread and Hanzou was taking a bit of a cheap shot by bringing him up. Probably the best way to move on and ignore him and let him fade away is to not bother defending him, since that does tend to make people think "are you kidding?" and go looking for evidence that he shouldn't be defended.


Im not defending him  my opinion is it just takes a big man to talk about someone thats not here to defend themself.  I got no problem if you want to tell me what you think of me Im here I can read and respond but to take shots at guys that are not here well...............


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So then its free to just bash the guy?



Dillman deserves the Kiai master treatment. In other words, he deserves to be a mocked pariah until the end of time.



> Dillman was purposly brought into this thread to take a cheap shot. He was not mentioned to provide value to the thread



Dillman was brought up because you implied that techniques performed on compliant partners are always legit.





Not legit.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Dillman deserves the Kiai master treatment. In other words, he deserves to be a mocked pariah until the end of time.


OK but at one time that behavior wasnt allowed here.  I guess new owners new rules either way its pretty telling....


----------



## geezer

ballen0351 said:


> So then its free to just *bash* the guy?



OK, regarding my _own_ comments and your use of the word "bash"... 







Legitimate, measured criticism based on evidence does not equal "bashing". I have legitimate reasons to disapprove of what has been shown in some of the videoclips here. Now if you feel that some posters are getting trollish, by all means call them on it. Just don't try to shut down any and all critical discussion.



Oh and I fully appreciate that this forum is about the only place where people treat each other and their respective arts with courtesy and respect. That is especially the case with my main stomping ground, the WC sub-forum. In fact we've been picking up a fair number of new members who are basically refugees from other forums where people got so embrolled in partisanship and infighting that finally, just about everybody bailed.


----------



## K-man

geezer said:


> OK, regarding my _own_ comments and your use of the word "bash"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legitimate, measured criticism based on evidence does not equal "bashing". I have legitimate reasons to disapprove of what has been shown in some of the videoclips here. Now if you feel that some posters are getting trollish, by all means call them on it. Just don't try to shut down any and all critical discussion.
> 
> Oh and I fully appreciate that this forum is about the only place where people treat each other and their respective arts with courtesy and respect. That is especially the case with my main stomping ground, the WC sub-forum. In fact we've been picking up a fair number of new members who are basically refugees from other forums where people got so embrolled in partisanship and infighting that finally, just about everybody bailed.


I agree totally. I am more than happy for someone to say, "in my opinion, there are flaws in this technique". When the technique is described as a joke or the instructor is labelled a fraud then I take offence, regardless of how bad it seems. Tear it apart by all means but explain why and give an opinion of how it could be done better. As *ballen* said, the behaviour we have witnessed over the last few months would not have been allowed in the past and go be honest I think it detracts from the forum and is a deterrent to others posting legitimate questions or making their contribution for fear of being held to ridicule. The beauty of this forum is the rich depth of contributors across a wide range of martial arts. That is what we can all gain from in a non-confrontational atmosphere. Now *Hanzou* claims he hasn't bashed any other style or any other martial artist. That obviously depends on the definition. Where it doesn't fit is in "Friendly Martial Arts Community". In the past we have seen a number of good people bail from here too and to me that is a real shame.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I agree totally. I am more than happy for someone to say, "in my opinion, there are flaws in this technique". When the technique is described as a joke or the instructor is labelled a fraud then I take offence, regardless of how bad it seems. Tear it apart by all means but explain why and give an opinion of how it could be done better. As *ballen* said, the behaviour we have witnessed over the last few months would not have been allowed in the past and go be honest I think it detracts from the forum and is a deterrent to others posting legitimate questions or making their contribution for fear of being held to ridicule. The beauty of this forum is the rich depth of contributors across a wide range of martial arts. That is what we can all gain from in a non-confrontational atmosphere. Now *Hanzou* claims he hasn't bashed any other style or any other martial artist. That obviously depends on the definition. Where it doesn't fit is in "Friendly Martial Arts Community". In the past we have seen a number of good people bail from here too and to me that is a real shame.
> :asian:



Wait. You think ballen is non confrontational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Wait. You think ballen is non confrontational?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Lol poor Steve

you know I was even called a liberal the other day on a police forum  I instantly thought how proud you would have been of me lol


----------



## drop bear

So anti grappling escaping the mount. My personal fav is she shrimp escape to half guard or guard and then stand up. The bump and roll is nice but nobody let's me do it anymore.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mtLowA0hEyk


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I agree totally. I am more than happy for someone to say, "in my opinion, there are flaws in this technique". When the technique is described as a joke or the instructor is labelled a fraud then I take offence, regardless of how bad it seems. Tear it apart by all means but explain why and give an opinion of how it could be done better. As *ballen* said, the behaviour we have witnessed over the last few months would not have been allowed in the past and go be honest I think it detracts from the forum and is a deterrent to others posting legitimate questions or making their contribution for fear of being held to ridicule. The beauty of this forum is the rich depth of contributors across a wide range of martial arts. That is what we can all gain from in a non-confrontational atmosphere. Now *Hanzou* claims he hasn't bashed any other style or any other martial artist. That obviously depends on the definition. Where it doesn't fit is in "Friendly Martial Arts Community". In the past we have seen a number of good people bail from here too and to me that is a real shame.
> :asian:



The bashing seems to be replaced with passive aggressive emo posting. And lecturing. Which is still bashing.

So have you tried that guard escape yet?


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> The bashing seems to be replaced with passive aggressive emo posting. And lecturing. Which is still bashing.



The only thing that should be bashed in martial arts is the pads.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> The only thing that should be bashed in martial arts is the pads.



No, this deserves to be bashed too;







This crap embarrasses all of us, and puts a stain on the martial artists who bust their arses for the improvement of their students and their art.

Also no one was bashing Hayes. No one called him a bad martial artist, and no one said that his Toshindo is bad MA.

He put out a bad technique, and he got called on it. It was well deserved.

As I said before, the real tragedy of that situation is Toshindo's reluctance to implement the guard into their ground-fighting system. If Hayes is serious about utilizing martial arts for self defense, ignoring the guard completely is a very puzzling decision.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> No, this deserves to be bashed too;
> 
> .


No it doesnt

*1.10.2 No Art bashing. 

No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fits your ability and need

**4.16.1 Fraud Busting

Due to its nature, this forum encourages the asking and answering of questions. Many times one member will have questions and concerns about the history, skills, lineage, or paperwork of another member. In other cases, things may be stated on a webpage, flyer or article relating to a member that raises some questions. Sometimes, comments will have been made elsewhere and those issues carried over to MartialTalk.

MartialTalk and its staff encourage the polite and professional search for knowledge. Questions and concerns may be brought up, with the understanding that the other party is under no requirement to answer. 

Most questions may be raised within the forums dedicated to a particular art or area of interest. For example, Kenpo Lineage questions in the Kenpo forum, are fine. Others of a more serious note, are to be limited to the &#8220;The Great Debate&#8221; forum.

Excessive &#8220;Inquisitor-style" questioning is not allowed and will be subject to administrative action. If you have had to ask a question more than 3 times, you are most likely running the risk of &#8220;excessive&#8217;.

In addition, &#8220;Hot Pursuit&#8221; actions will not be tolerated. The &#8220;Hot Pursuit&#8221; is defined as asking the same or similar questions in multiple threads and / or forums.*


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No it doesnt



Yes it does.

None of those rules applies to that nonsense.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> None of those rules applies to that nonsense.


Oh ok so rules only apply to what you thing they apply too?


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Oh ok so rules only apply to what you thing they apply too?



Those rules apply to martial arts.

That crap isn't martial arts.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Those rules apply to martial arts.
> 
> That crap isn't martial arts.


lol  OK


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> lol  OK



Oh, so you believe that it is? Please explain how something that is complete fantasy and non-existent is classified as a martial art.

I sweat, ache, and bleed everytime I walk out of my class. Placing my art in the same category with that Dillman trash is insulting, as it should be for any martial artist who truly sacrifices for their art.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Oh, so you believe that it is? Please explain how something that is complete fantasy and non-existent is classified as a martial art.
> 
> I sweat, ache, and bleed everytime I walk out of my class. Placing my art in the same category with that Dillman trash is insulting, as it should be for any martial artist who truly sacrifices for their art.


Please spare me that blood sweat and tears crap.  I dont care what they do, what they teach, what they learn, what they call it, what they believe, its none of my business.  I worry about me and what I do. I could not care any less what people I dont know in a place Ive never been do.  There is no standard regulatory agency to say what can and cant be an art.  If thats the kinda stuff that "insults" you then you need thicker skin.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Please spare me that blood sweat and tears crap.  I dont care what they do, what they teach, what they learn, what they call it, what they believe, its none of my business.  I worry about me and what I do. I could not care any less what people I dont know in a place Ive never been do.  There is no standard regulatory agency to say what can and cant be an art.  If thats the kinda stuff that "insults" you then you need thicker skin.



And here you are trying to have it both ways again. If you don't care about what they do, then why are you defending them?

You also didn't answer my previous question; How is that nonsense "martial arts"?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> And here you are trying to have it both ways again. If you don't care about what they do, then why are you defending them?


Im not defending anyone Im pointing out the rules here that you seem to not have to follow.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Im not defending anyone Im pointing out the rules here that you seem to not have to follow.



Legitimizing that crap is defending it. Placing that crap on the same level as what we do is defending it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Legitimizing that crap is defending it. Placing that crap on the same level as what we do is defending it.


LOL ok thats a brilliant argument


----------



## ballen0351

So using your logic lets see at dfferent times Ive guarded a Pro-life and Pro-choice protesters, defending their right to speak so Which position do I defend since I put them on the same lvl as eachother?  I stood guard at a KKK rally once also guess Im now a Klansman.  Guarded the Westboro baptist goons 3 times guess Im part of them as well.  Get real man your not the keeper of all that is a Martial Arts.  If you dont like it dont do it but leave them alone at least they are out doing something and enjoying themselves this after all is a hobby for most people


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> So using your logic lets see at dfferent times Ive guarded a Pro-life and Pro-choice protesters, defending their right to speak so Which position do I defend since I put them on the same lvl as eachother?  I stood guard at a KKK rally once also guess Im now a Klansman.  Guarded the Westboro baptist goons 3 times guess Im part of them as well.  Get real man your not the keeper of all that is a Martial Arts.  If you dont like it dont do it but leave them alone at least they are out doing something and enjoying themselves this after all is a hobby for most people



Your logic is faulty. They have a right to say and do whatever they want, just like I have a right to criticize them for doing what they do. Klansmen and Westboro folks have a right to march and spout off their stupidity, just like I have a right to point out that they're stupid.

Your problem here is that you're saying that per the rules, I need to respect that fantasy BS the way I respect legitimate martial arts. Frankly I don't, since that fantasy BS isn't martial arts. If you disagree, please explain how tricking people into believing that "chi balls" are knocking them out from 20 feet away is the same as what we do in the REAL martial arts.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Your logic is faulty. They have a right to say and do whatever they want, just like I have a right to criticize them for doing what they do. Klansmen and Westboro folks have a right to march and spout off their stupidity, just like I have a right to point out that they're stupid.
> 
> Your problem here is that you're saying that per the rules, I need to respect that fantasy BS the way I respect legitimate martial arts. Frankly I don't, since that fantasy BS isn't martial arts. If you disagree, please explain how tricking people into believing that "chi balls" are knocking them out from 20 feet away is the same as what we do in the REAL martial arts.


No the rules dont say you need to respect anything they say you cant come on this site and Bash other arts.  NO matter how much crying you do its an art


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No the rules dont say you need to respect anything they say you cant come on this site and Bash other arts.  NO matter how much crying you do its an art



And again this;







Is not martial arts.

If you disagree, please explain.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> And again this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not martial arts.
> 
> If you disagree, please explain.


Show me the rule bookof what is and isnt a Martial Art.  If there isnt one then who cares what they call it.  They can consider it what ever they want


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> And again this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not martial arts.
> 
> If you disagree, please explain.



This is not a martial art it is just a part of their martial art that they do for whatever reason.


----------



## PiedmontChun

> Oh, so you believe that it is? Please explain how something that is complete fantasy and non-existent is classified as a martial art.
> I sweat, ache, and bleed everytime I walk out of my class. Placing my art in the same category with that Dillman trash is insulting, as it should be for any martial artist who truly sacrifices for their art.



I've never seen someone metaphorically cry for validation of their art or their practice of it than the above quote. Seriously. We all may laugh and cringe at what passes for fighting methods or martial arts at times, but those who teach and learn an "art" are the ones who own it- not you, and not me. A good majority of the regular public think MAs are for kids or for movies anyway, without questionable arts even entering into the equation for them. If they have a skewed impression, who cares? My first SiFu was light-hearted enough to crack a joke about people thinking we "forgot to change out of our pajamas" when we stepped out from extended training for a lunch break while dressed in kung fu pants and t-shirts. He took his art and his teaching seriously, but did not take himself so seriously to the point he was concerned with what others thought. People outside your art don't understand or appreciate it like you do precisely for that reason; they are OUTSIDE of it.


----------



## Hanzou

PiedmontChun said:


> I've never seen someone metaphorically cry for validation of their art or their practice of it than the above quote. Seriously. We all may laugh and cringe at what passes for fighting methods or martial arts at times, but those who teach and learn an "art" are the ones who own it- not you, and not me. A good majority of the regular public think MAs are for kids or for movies anyway, without questionable arts even entering into the equation for them. If they have a skewed impression, who cares? My first SiFu was light-hearted enough to crack a joke about people thinking we "forgot to change out of our pajamas" when we stepped out from extended training for a lunch break while dressed in kung fu pants and t-shirts. He took his art and his teaching seriously, but did not take himself so seriously to the point he was concerned with what others thought. People outside your art don't understand or appreciate it like you do precisely for that reason; they are OUTSIDE of it.



So Ballen is OUTSIDE of the martial arts now? :lol: That's who I was talking about, not the public in general.

Never have I seen a post that so utterly misses the point. The public knows silliness and nonsense when they see it. It was people OUTSIDE the arts who finally outed Dillman, not the MA community.

Frankly, you're not giving the public enough credit. They know real MA from phony MA, and they recognize the arts more geared towards children, and the arts that are more combative or physical. In the end, we should hold what we do, and those we do them with to a higher standard. The people OUTSIDE the arts do, and so should we.

If you don't wish to do that, fine. Stay out of the way of the people that do.


----------



## ballen0351

nevermind


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Its a hobby get over yourself, training in a MA doesnt make you special.  Stop worrying about what other people train in, or what they call it.  You dont like it fine dont train in it.



For some, MA is a hobby, for others its their job and livelihood. Some are professional competitors or fighters, others are instructors. Please don't be so arrogant as to believe that everyone does MA for the reasons you do it.



> Or what?  you will talk bad about them from behind a keyboard?



I'm amused that you viewed that as some sort of physical threat. :lol:  I'm simply saying that if you don't care about the discussion, stay out of it.

Like I said before, you're way too emotional for this conversation.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> For some, MA is a hobby, for others its their job and livelihood. Some are professional competitors or fighters, others are instructors. Please don't be so arrogant as to believe that everyone does MA for the reasons you do it.


MOST people its a hobby sorry but thats just how it is thats not arrogance it just is.



> I'm amused that you viewed that as some sort of physical threat.  I'm simply saying that if you don't care about the discussion, stay out of it.


All your doing is bashing styles and people that are not even here to defend themselves or their art.  You cant physically threaten anyone over the internet you give yourself too much credit.  Im simply saying of you dont like a style stay away from it and stop talking smack about them


> Like I said before, you're way too emotional for this conversation.


Naa its the internets man no emotion involved at all


----------



## Dinkydoo

Hanzou said:


> Frankly, you're not giving the public enough credit. They know real MA from phony MA, and they recognize the arts more geared towards children, and the arts that are more combative or physical. In the end, we should hold what we do, and those we do them with to a higher standard. The people OUTSIDE the arts do, and so should we.



Really? From my experience the general public don't really have the first clue about real martial arts. 

Apparently the Kung Fu I do is Karate, the Kickboxing I do is Karate and Judo is the one where practitioners wear dressing gowns. All recent quotes from people who I'm actually quite close to as well - who evidently haven't been listening to a word I've said over the past 3 - 4 years. Thank god we don't actually have individual styles that are classified in collective terms, that would just be way too confusing  

As a little addition to this discussion, I myself have been the victim of some pretty crappy and incomplete training methods in the past - not on the same level as magical powers, I admit. I was bitter about it at first, annoyed and felt like showing styles and training methods up for what they are but after a little while I simply accepted it for what it was and moved on. You look like need to do the same, you don't do Kung Fu anymore Hanzou. Let it go.


----------



## Hanzou

Dinkydoo said:


> As a little addition to this discussion, I myself have been the victim of some pretty crappy and incomplete training methods in the past - not on the same level as magical powers, I admit. I was bitter about it at first, annoyed and felt like showing styles and training methods up for what they are but after a little while I simply accepted it for what it was and moved on. You look like need to do the same, you don't do Kung Fu anymore Hanzou. Let it go.



You do realize that that is the entire point of this thread right?


----------



## Grenadier

*Administrator's note:*

Thread closed, pending staff review.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------

