# A Question of Technique and Practical Application.



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

In another thread this video was put up to show that Krav techniques are not effective for Reality Based training. The original poster seems to be an expert on YouTube clips but little else, but I digress.   In this clip a guy called Moni Aizik is demonstrating a defence against a shoot takedown. Now Moni has a Judo background and is not really Krav (a simple search will give you details if you like), so this is not really a Krav technique at all despite the YouTube label. 

What I would like to discuss, hopefully with guys with extensive RB backgrounds like Rich, Brian and TSD, what do you think of this technique? I won't comment beyond saying that I took it to my karate class last night and I will give it to my Krav guys tonight. I'll discuss my feelings after a few people have a chance to respond.

Here is the clip.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Doesn't work. From any perspective really. I don't even think that would class as a double or single leg takedown. It is sort of a busted mash between the two. Actually I am doing judo tonight. I can even ask if that is in any way in line with that.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 8, 2014)

Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?



Here is the theory.
Elbows are not allowed in competition and therefore give the advantage to the person that trains them as takedown defence.


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?


If you listen to the commentary he states that he wants to avoid going to the ground so from that perspective a sprawl may not be appropriate. 

Here, perhaps, is another alternative but it still means probably going to the ground.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GhVbdRdXliw

As to the elbow strike, it is not a dropping elbow to my way of thinking. It's more of a swinging elbow.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Sprawl
Cross face 
Over hook.

Sprawl 
Cross face
Over hook.

Sprawl 
Crosface
Over hook.

From there you can reality all over the place. Heck re stomp the groin until it falls off. But first.

Sprawl
Cross face 
Over hook.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?



Because an elbow would allow you maintain your balance without having to rely on your opponent to hold you up.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> In another thread this video was put up to show that Krav techniques are not effective for Reality Based training. The original poster seems to be an expert on YouTube clips but little else, but I digress.   In this clip a guy called Moni Aizik is demonstrating a defence against a shoot takedown. Now Moni has a Judo background and is not really Krav (a simple search will give you details if you like), so this is not really a Krav technique at all despite the YouTube label.
> 
> What I would like to discuss, hopefully with guys with extensive RB backgrounds like Rich, Brian and TSD, what do you think of this technique? I won't comment beyond saying that I took it to my karate class last night and I will give it to my Krav guys tonight. I'll discuss my feelings after a few people have a chance to respond.
> 
> ...



I think that he would be better off using his other arm to do a downward elbow as it would be quicker and would allow him to use his hips to turn in the same direction as the rear foot is moving for more power.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Because an elbow would allow you maintain your balance without having to rely on your opponent to hold you up.



And if you miss the elbow the guy is going to turn the corner and take your butt down, particularly since any half decent wrestler isn't going to do a bellyflop at your knee.  Sprawl against this bellyflop takedown attempt will result in his face in the ground, then you can do all the stompy/drop elbow things when the target isn't moving as fast.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

Blindside said:


> And if you miss the elbow the guy is going to turn the corner and take your butt down, particularly since any half decent wrestler isn't going to do a bellyflop at your knee.  Sprawl against this bellyflop takedown attempt will result in his face in the ground, then you can do all the stompy/drop elbow things when the target isn't moving as fast.



1) Don't miss the elbow.
2) If he was a half decent wrestler then he would have done the take down better than he did in the video.
3) If you time it right he will not have time to turn the corner. 
4) If he was moving as slow as he was in the video then there would be more than enough time to do the elbow.
5) If he is moving faster then it would be better to concentrate on getting out of the way first.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> In another thread this video was put up to show that Krav techniques are not effective for Reality Based training. The original poster seems to be an expert on YouTube clips but little else, but I digress.


 
Hmm&#8230; just a quick one, then&#8230; what relationship does a Krav (or, in this case, "Krav") technique have to Reality Based training&#8230;? I suppose that's for the poster on the other thread, of course&#8230; which thread would that be?



K-man said:


> In this clip a guy called Moni Aizik is demonstrating a defence against a shoot takedown. Now Moni has a Judo background and is not really Krav (a simple search will give you details if you like), so this is not really a Krav technique at all despite the YouTube label.



Ha, yep&#8230; hence "Krav"&#8230; ha!



K-man said:


> What I would like to discuss, hopefully with guys with extensive RB backgrounds like Rich, Brian and TSD, what do you think of this technique? I won't comment beyond saying that I took it to my karate class last night and I will give it to my Krav guys tonight. I'll discuss my feelings after a few people have a chance to respond.



Cool.



K-man said:


> Here is the clip.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc
> 
> :asian:



Uh&#8230; okay. Yeah, not fond of that at all, honestly&#8230; far, far too many issues. I get the tactic of removing the leg as a target and striking as the opponent over-reaches&#8230; but that particular execution is rather lacking, I feel&#8230; in a number of ways&#8230; not least of all, actual "Reality".



Blindside said:


> Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?



It would be. However, that should not be construed as saying a sprawl is the best option&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Here is the theory.
> Elbows are not allowed in competition and therefore give the advantage to the person that trains them as takedown defence.



That is in no way the theory.



drop bear said:


> Sprawl
> Cross face
> Over hook.
> 
> ...



That's one option&#8230; but far from the only one, and not what I would suggest is the best in a number of circumstances, honestly.



RTKDCMB said:


> Because an elbow would allow you maintain your balance without having to rely on your opponent to hold you up.



I'd accept that as part of an answer if Moni wasn't leaning over so far to get the hit...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

My judo instructor who happens to also be Israeli and so has some association with leave says nope and the just kind of looked confused.

Asked two reality based guys. And also nope not a go.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm&#8230; just a quick one, then&#8230; what relationship does a Krav (or, in this case, "Krav") technique have to Reality Based training&#8230;? I suppose that's for the poster on the other thread, of course&#8230; which thread would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Trying to give a simple high percentage defence that a person could do without having to step inside a grappling gym. Yes there are other options but I picked that one for the sake of simplicity.

A really hard cross face will stand the guy up as well. Yes you will go into a fifty fifty clinch and then have to deal with that. But we wanted to avoid the ground. So avoid the ground I did.

What was your idea on an alternative?


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

In the first one. If a guy is coming at you at that bodily angle, surely a knee smash to the face would be easier.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> In the first one. If a guy is coming at you at that bodily angle, surely a knee smash to the face would be easier.



Bear in mind it is a terrible takedown attempt. So in that case yes. But I would not really go for a knee as a standard. They catch your leg you wind up on your back.

Kneeing is the opposite of sprawling. So instead of getting your legs out of the way you are giving them to the guy trying to take you down.

Yes you can time it and knee a persons face off which will defend. But if you miss.......


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Not a fan. It might work against the brain-dead slow-motion superman tackle from out of range that his assistant was feeding him, but then so would almost anything.

Against most untrained tackles I would probably default to changing levels, going off-line if possible, and checking the opponent's shoulders with my hands/forearms to stop his momentum before countering with whatever strikes/grappling he seemed open for. Sprawling requires a bit more commitment and I tend to save it for when it's actually necessary (a skilled grappler making a good shot).


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Bear in mind it is a terrible takedown attempt. So in that case yes. But I would not really go for a knee as a standard. They catch your leg you wind up on your back.
> 
> Kneeing is the opposite of sprawling. So instead of getting your legs out of the way you are giving them to the guy trying to take you down.
> 
> Yes you can time it and knee a persons face off which will defend. But if you miss.......



Yeah was thinking that success would mean 100 percent accuracy. Have you used sprawling, or defended like that?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah was thinking that success would mean 100 percent accuracy. Have you used sprawling, or defended like that?



The sprawling is a method I have used but I have the added issue that nobody I train with will have their takedown stuffed and then just give up. They are expecting me to sprawl and will then counter that. So it becomes a battle.

But for self defence sprawling works fine. Also pushing down on the head up on the arm and angling off. You would probably get away with just those two defences.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The sprawling is a method I have used but I have the added issue that nobody I train with will have their takedown stuffed and then just give up. They are expecting me to sprawl and will then counter that. So it becomes a battle.
> 
> But for self defence sprawling works fine. Also pushing down on the head up on the arm and angling off. You would probably get away with just those two defences.



Once I did have to do something similar. Although in my case it would have been more rugby.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Once I did have to do something similar. Although in my case it would have been more rugby.



The palm off. Yeah similar.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 8, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> In the first one. If a guy is coming at you at that bodily angle, surely a knee smash to the face would be easier.



You will have a better chance of smashing the face with your leg if you move off the line first.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 8, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Can someone explain to me why a simple sprawl wouldn't be a better answer than gambling on landing a dropping elbow?



They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.

Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.
> 
> Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.



I don't particularly want to sprawl in the real world because I don't particularly want to end up on my face on the ground.  That said -- yeah, sprawling is certainly one effective and simple way to deal with an attack like this.  Not real keen on the so-called "krav maga" approach here.  Avoidance, repositioning, and "helping" the attacker along along is another, though it of course presupposes that you see the attack coming.  Hell, simply stepping off the line, and letting them trip on your foot can work.  

To be honest, though, I still see more football-style tackling attempts than some form of single/double leg takedown.  And those are a whole 'nother question...  You can't sprawl out of one...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> I don't particularly want to sprawl in the real world because I don't particularly want to end up on my face on the ground.  That said -- yeah, sprawling is certainly one effective and simple way to deal with an attack like this.  Not real keen on the so-called "krav maga" approach here.  Avoidance, repositioning, and "helping" the attacker along along is another, though it of course presupposes that you see the attack coming.  Hell, simply stepping off the line, and letting them trip on your foot can work.
> 
> To be honest, though, I still see more football-style tackling attempts than some form of single/double leg takedown.  And those are a whole 'nother question...  You can't sprawl out of one...




How come?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 8, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> In the first one. If a guy is coming at you at that bodily angle, surely a knee smash to the face would be easier.



Someone attempting a knee during a properly done DLT is a dream come true for any grappler worth their salt.

Additionally, most DLTs aren't done from several feet away. Some are done within striking range, and they're very hard to counter.

Take this one for example;






Good luck countering that with a knee or elbow to the spine.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> To be honest, though, I still see more football-style tackling attempts than some form of single/double leg takedown.  And those are a whole 'nother question...  You can't sprawl out of one...



Depends on how far over the attacker is bent when he goes for the tackle. If he's low enough (waist level or lower), then the sprawl is extremely effective. if not, then I treat it as an aggressive sloppy clinch attempt and deal with it accordingly.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.
> 
> Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.


"Wing Chun guys conjured up..." ???

There is an organization that came up with the 'anti grappling' term as a marketing tool. Period. I know of only 1 wc family that uses that term. 
I don't know anyone personally in the wing chun family I am associated with that uses 'anti grappling'. That is like saying grapplers go to guard. Some do but most grappling systems don't use guard. Jujitsu and its offshoots do but most don't.
We happen to do a lot of ground work in our wing chun.

There will always be different opinions and there will always be applications that work well at the proper time and that will not at other times.
This is no one best way always everytime.


----------



## Buka (Oct 8, 2014)

I live by the sprawl, it's just habit. I familiar with other movements/counters to a tackle or double leg, but sprawling is what comes out. I suppose if I live by the sprawl, I may die by the sprawl as well. Ah, well, such is life. 

It's all good when it works, it sucks when it don't. Just keep fighting. Good guys always win. (hey, it's MY dream. so leave me alone!)


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 8, 2014)

Danny T said:


> "Wing Chun guys conjured up..." ???
> 
> There is an organization that came up with the 'anti grappling' term as a marketing tool. Period. I know of only 1 wc family that uses that term.



You're the first WC exponent that has actually admitted that. Kudos.



> I don't know anyone personally in the wing chun family I am associated with that uses 'anti grappling'. That is like saying grapplers go to guard. Some do but most grappling systems don't use guard. Jujitsu and its offshoots do but most don't.
> We happen to do a lot of ground work in our wing chun.



There's a big difference between the Guard, and making up an entirely fraudulent method of self defense simply because you want to curtail the grappling/MMA craze.



> There will always be different opinions and there will always be applications that work well at the proper time and that will not at other times.
> This is no one best way always everytime.



I agree. What makes you think I don't believe that?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

Flow wrestling scrambles. You can see that sprawl cross face. Notice that the sprawl does not inherently put the guy on the ground really so much. OK yes when they re grapple but as far as being able to stand up. The option is there.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dhqsRu8v7UA


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You will have a better chance of smashing the face with your leg if you move off the line first.



Okay. Interesting. That would take some doing though would it not. At least in the sense of being able to effectively, IE, opponent down and out.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Someone attempting a knee during a properly done DLT is a dream come true for any grappler worth their salt.
> 
> Additionally, most DLTs aren't done from several feet away. Some are done within striking range, and they're very hard to counter.
> 
> Good luck countering that with a knee or elbow to the spine.



Indeed. Have to say that I need to watch more grappling/wrestling. Yeah that is some skill on display. Thanks for sharing man!


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

Buka said:


> I live by the sprawl, it's just habit. I familiar with other movements/counters to a tackle or double leg, but sprawling is what comes out. I suppose if I live by the sprawl, I may die by the sprawl as well. Ah, well, such is life.
> 
> It's all good when it works, it sucks when it don't. Just keep fighting. Good guys always win. (hey, it's MY dream. so leave me alone!)



Yeah, as long as you ain't English


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 8, 2014)

*Really hard to get off line like that against a good grappler who is committed to getting a double leg*.  The sprawl is the most effective double leg, single leg countering technique.  Is it the only option.  No it is not but it is the one with the highest possibility of working and you will still have your mobility. (ie. could get up and move if necessary)  What most people who have never grappled do not see is that when someone who knows how to shoot in for a double leg takedown comes in they do it or try to do it when their opponent is flat footed.  This makes it hard to move, counter by getting off line, knee them in the head, sprawl, etc.  The person shooting in does not also stop their forward momentum once they grab a leg or both legs.  No, instead they keep coming forward until they have the person's legs, off balance them and are taking them to the ground.  They will also adjust quickly if you move off line.   I would be the first to admit that the double leg and single leg are not my best takedowns.  However, knowing how and when to do them makes me very, very, very good against someone with little to no training against a double leg. (ie. everyone not a good wrestler lol)  A good grappler is not worried about the knee because they will shoot when you are flat footed or fake a strike to get you flat footed and the elbow well your shot at it is when you are off balance and falling backward.  *Which is not very effective!*  Bottom line, practice the sprawl and have it as your number one option.  Not your only option but your best option!  It really is simple to learn and best of all it works!


----------



## Danny T (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You're the first WC exponent that has actually admitted that. Kudos.


Ok, how much real experience do you have with other WC exponents?





Hanzou said:


> There's a big difference between the Guard, and making up an entirely fraudulent method of self defense simply because you want to curtail the grappling/MMA craze.



The point is; in your statement you place all wc in the 'anti-grappling' family just as I used all grapplers go to guard.




Hanzou said:


> I agree. What makes you think I don't believe that?


Your statement putting all wc people into a group of 'anti grappling' and that the sprawl isn't use only because wc people want to be different.

In the OP video the sprawl wasn't needed. The step back and downward elbow worked because of the weak shoot by the opponent. You can opine on the poor shoot but there was no need to sprawl because of the shoot. That's all. If the guy had done a proper DLT I would be in agreement that the sprawl would have been a far better option. But he didn't.


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.
> 
> Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.


Can I suggest if you don't want to contribute to the discussion in a sensible way then just stay out of it totally. You have disrupted every other thread. Perhaps this one could be different?

FWIW I reposted your video so it could be discussed without reference to your pet anti-everything not BJJ attitude.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> Can I suggest if you don't want to contribute to the discussion in a sensible way then just stay out of it totally. You have disrupted every other thread. Perhaps this one could be different?
> 
> FWIW I reposted your video so it could be discussed without reference to your pet anti-everything not BJJ attitude.



Yes, and you decided to tack on a thinly veiled insult in my direction as well.

So I will participate, since this wonderful thread began because of me.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

Mmm, intriguing thread


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 8, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Ok, how much real experience do you have with other WC exponents?



Quite a bit actually. I wish I could say it was positive.




> The point is; in your statement you place all wc in the 'anti-grappling' family just as I used all grapplers go to guard.



Only because almost every WCer I've run across whether online or IRL has defended that nonsense.



> Your statement putting all wc people into a group of 'anti grappling' and that the sprawl isn't use only because wc people want to be different.
> 
> In the OP video the sprawl wasn't needed. The step back and downward elbow worked because of the weak shoot by the opponent. You can opine on the poor shoot but there was no need to sprawl because of the shoot. That's all. If the guy had done a proper DLT I would be in agreement that the sprawl would have been a far better option. But he didn't.



The question was why so many non-grappling arts come up with make-believe silliness to counter grappling when there's far more reliable information available. I responded in kind.


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

OK, my turn. Can I start by saying that any training video is just that, a training video. Whether the attack is realistic or whether it is sloppy has nothing to do with the validity of the technique being practised. What we are discussing is whether the technique being demonstrated is sound and would it be practical in its application. When it was originally posted it was in a post putting Krav down. That is why I took it out of that thread. But more concerning to me is that it doesn't look vaguely like Krav for a number of reasons and to me it is nothing like what I would ever do. The swinging elbow strike to the back of the head was another move that seemed a little odd. Gripping the hands like that reduces the range of motion and hence the power and against a moving target does't appear to me a high percentage technique. In the demonstration Moni had time to step back. In reality I'm not sure why an attacker, intent on taking you to the ground, would ignore the front leg and keep chasing the back one. But putting that aside, let's assume that the attack is realistic, that the attacker has at least a basic knowledge of single or double leg takedowns and he is committed.

To me, as *Drop Bear* said early on, what is wrong with a simple sprawl? As many have pointed out, unless the attacker has ducked under and stopped, it is hard to imagine you could rely on the use of an elbow strike to stop the attack. Following a simple sprawl, assuming the guy is not a highly trained grappler, it is relatively easy and quick to regain your feet. It is only in a sporting context that you would remain on the ground. If you wanted to you could put in some elbow strikes at that time but again, the sprawl position means you can't really utilise your body weight effectively. As you are getting up, depending on the position of the attacker's head, an opportunity to knee his head or kick his head might present.

For me there could be several options, or variations of the sprawl defence. *Tony Dismukes* mentioned one here ...



Tony Dismukes said:


> Against most untrained tackles I would probably default to changing levels, going off-line if possible, and checking the opponent's shoulders with my hands/forearms to stop his momentum before countering with whatever strikes/grappling he seemed open for. Sprawling requires a bit more commitment and I tend to save it for when it's actually necessary (a skilled grappler making a good shot).




Forearms to the shoulders, similar to a 'fence' keeps him at bay and give the opportunity to hook one shoulder to roll him to the ground using his own forward momentum, or simply redirect his face to the ground. Either way you have numerous finishing options. Once his forward momentum is stopped, the opportunity to strike with the forearm to the back of the neck, elbow to the spine or knee to the head may be available. As Tony said, you can do what is available to you.

Another variation, depending on the level of the attacker, is one arm on the shoulder and the other arm between you and your attacker's neck. That can give you a face bar or a choke.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Yes, and you decided to tack on a thinly veiled insult in my direction as well.
> 
> So I will participate, since this wonderful thread began because of me.


It was only thinly veiled to you.   However your contribution would be appreciated if you could just keep to the topic, please.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> In another thread this video was put up to show that Krav techniques are not effective for Reality Based training. The original poster seems to be an expert on YouTube clips but little else, but I digress.   In this clip a guy called Moni Aizik is demonstrating a defence against a shoot takedown. Now Moni has a Judo background and is not really Krav (a simple search will give you details if you like), so this is not really a Krav technique at all despite the YouTube label.
> 
> What I would like to discuss, hopefully with guys with extensive RB backgrounds like Rich, Brian and TSD, what do you think of this technique? I won't comment beyond saying that I took it to my karate class last night and I will give it to my Krav guys tonight. I'll discuss my feelings after a few people have a chance to respond.
> 
> ...


I really don't have a problem with the first move, but it all goes to hell from there.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 8, 2014)

I will have to agree with the consensus that it's not a viable reality defense technique. The way I view this technique is that it is totally reliant on moving the leg back out of reach. As was mentioned a skilled person doing a take down like this happens at a closer range then most would think and the reactionary time lag of the 1/4 second rule would make stepping back like this impossible. If the take down was done in an amateur sloppy way with enough time to do this why not just step out of the way and kick the dude in the face.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> It was only thinly veiled to you.   However your contribution would be appreciated if you could just keep to the topic, please.




By the way how did your krav guys go with it?


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> By the way how did your krav guys go with it?


Well for a start a few of us are too old to bend down that far so the elbow missed by a good 6 inches. 

But, seriously? I wouldn't teach that in a pink fit. I think it is like a lot of stuff you see on the internet. Something that at first glance looks ok but when you think about it, it is fundamentally flawed. I've always gone with the basic sprawl but if I get a chance I'll go through some of my Krav material to see what else they might use. For me personally, bringing a foot back, turning the hip in and with the arm beside the neck for a choke, face bar or a straight twisting takedown is my preferred option, but hey, I teach you have to work from what you get. Guy rushes in, you react, what comes next depends on the position you find yourself in which is why we train multiple defences, but the initial sprawl or part thereof is the basic first step.
:asian:


----------



## geezer (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.
> 
> Its the same reason *Wing Chun guys* conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.



*
Some* WC guys. 


Personally, I 'm pretty much in line with Drop Bear, et. al. on this one. If the guy comes at you from out of range with a clumsy horizontal tackle, I'd go off-line and stuff his head. Against a decent shoot, I sprawl and crossface, then get behind him and establish control. And I'm a WC guy ....who began my MA journey as a _wrestler_.



BTW "anti-grappling" has become a catch-all term that encompasses anything a striker can use to maintain his game against a grappler. IMO it can never be as versatile and effective as having a great command of both striking and grappling. So what? It is what it is.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 9, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Really hard to get off line like that against a good grappler who is committed to getting a double leg*.



Unless you happen to be good at getting off the line.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> Forearms to the shoulders, similar to a 'fence' keeps him at bay and give the opportunity to hook one shoulder to roll him to the ground using his own forward momentum, or simply redirect his face to the ground. Either way you have numerous finishing options. Once his forward momentum is stopped, the opportunity to strike with the forearm to the back of the neck, elbow to the spine or knee to the head may be available. As Tony said, you can do what is available to you.
> 
> Another variation, depending on the level of the attacker, is one arm on the shoulder and the other arm between you and your attacker's neck. That can give you a face bar or a choke.
> :asian:



One variation that I have been working on is after the double forearm to the shoulders, from that position, to clamp on to either side of the neck and twisting them down to the ground towards the rear leg.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

geezer said:


> BTW "anti-grappling" has become a catch-all term that encompasses anything a striker can use to maintain his game against a grappler. IMO it can never be as versatile and effective as having a great command of both striking and grappling. So what? It is what it is.



Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, *learn grappling*. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.
> 
> Its the same reason* Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple*.





Hanzou said:


> Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, *learn grappling*. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.


As you will see it was you that started the 'anti grappling' nonsense. Discuss it by all means but not on this thread! Start another one. This thread is discussing a video that you posted and when we are through discussing it I will put up the next one that you posted that was just as bad.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Trying to give a simple high percentage defence that a person could do without having to step inside a grappling gym. Yes there are other options but I picked that one for the sake of simplicity.
> 
> A really hard cross face will stand the guy up as well. Yes you will go into a fifty fifty clinch and then have to deal with that. But we wanted to avoid the ground. So avoid the ground I did.
> 
> What was your idea on an alternative?



As I said, your approach was one&#8230; not the only&#8230; nor the best, depending on the context. So, if you're going to ask about alternatives, you need to understand the context first&#8230; 

To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application&#8230; and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is&#8230; it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted&#8230; but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself&#8230; what I'd class as a "half sprawl"&#8230; in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play&#8230; the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent&#8230; which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution). 

Both versions have advantages, and disadvantages&#8230; as every technique does&#8230; so what you need to do is to understand what the context you're applying it in is, and pick the one which suits your context best. My version, in a sporting context, is unnecessarily open to attack&#8230; the more classic "sprawl", in my context, is dangerously unbalanced and immobile.



Hanzou said:


> They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.



Er&#8230; what?

No. They don't want to sprawl because it simply doesn't suit the body mechanics, tactical methodology, principles, ideals, and concepts of Wing Chun. There's no need to be similar to anything other than Wing Chun, and no need to be different from anything either.



Hanzou said:


> Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.



"Conjured up"?!?! 

Dude. Grappling is not the be-all, end-all&#8230; it's just one area&#8230; and hardly the best there is.



Hanzou said:


> You're the first WC exponent that has actually admitted that. Kudos.



Admitted what?!?! Did you actually read his post? He mentioned that the term "anti-grappling" was coined by one organisation&#8230; with no mention of it being a Wing Chun one&#8230; followed by saying that only one family/branch of Wing Chun has adopted the term themselves&#8230; so what exactly do you think that Danny "admitted"?!?!?

Seriously, you're seemingly unable to see beyond the small area you think is important&#8230; do we need to go back to Horatio again?



Hanzou said:


> There's a big difference between the Guard, and making up an entirely fraudulent method of self defense simply because you want to curtail the grappling/MMA craze.



Careful with throwing around the f word, there&#8230; you may not like the approach found in some Wing Chun schools, you may find it flawed, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent&#8230; it just means that it's flawed&#8230; or, at the least, less than effective&#8230; you might want to come to grips with the difference there&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I agree. What makes you think I don't believe that?



Because you call methods you're less than impressed with "fraudulent", for one&#8230; there's more, of course&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, *learn grappling*. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.



Yeah&#8230; we're going to go back to Horatio&#8230;


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> As you will see it was you that started the 'anti grappling' nonsense. Discuss it by all means but not on this thread! Start another one. This thread is discussing a video that you posted and when we are through discussing it I will put up the next one that you posted that was just as bad.



I mentioned the anti-grappling stuff because its relevant to the topic. That "Krav Maga" TD counter is just as ridiculous at the anti-grappling WC stuff. They were both concocted for the same reasons, and they serve the same purposes.

You should also post the Krav Maga kick in the fact to counter the double leg takedown.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Er&#8230; what?
> 
> No. They don't want to sprawl because it simply doesn't suit the body mechanics, tactical methodology, principles, ideals, and concepts of Wing Chun. There's no need to be similar to anything other than Wing Chun, and no need to be different from anything either.



It would appear that Emin Boztepe and others disagree.



> "Conjured up"?!?!
> 
> Dude. Grappling is not the be-all, end-all&#8230; it's just one area&#8230; and hardly the best there is.



Yet clearly threatening enough to conjure up an entirely made up system to counter it.




> Admitted what?!?! Did you actually read his post? He mentioned that the term "anti-grappling" was coined by one organisation&#8230; with no mention of it being a Wing Chun one&#8230; followed by saying that only one family/branch of Wing Chun has adopted the term themselves&#8230; so what exactly do you think that Danny "admitted"?!?!?



Read Danny's post again. Its pretty clear that he is distancing himself from WC practitioners who have embraced anti-grappling as a legitimate aspect of Wing Chun. 




> Careful with throwing around the f word, there&#8230; you may not like the approach found in some Wing Chun schools, you may find it flawed, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent&#8230; it just means that it's flawed&#8230; or, at the least, less than effective&#8230; you might want to come to grips with the difference there&#8230;



We've already established that it was created purely for marketing purposes, and that the techniques applied are ineffective to outright silly. What else should we call it?



> Because you call methods you're less than impressed with "fraudulent", for one&#8230; there's more, of course&#8230;



See above.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application&#8230; and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is&#8230; it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted&#8230; but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself&#8230; what I'd class as a "half sprawl"&#8230; in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play&#8230; the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent&#8230; which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution).
> 
> Both versions have advantages, and disadvantages&#8230; as every technique does&#8230; so what you need to do is to understand what the context you're applying it in is, and pick the one which suits your context best. My version, in a sporting context, is unnecessarily open to attack&#8230; the more classic "sprawl", in my context, is dangerously unbalanced and immobile.



I'd agree with most of this, except to note that what you are calling a "half-sprawl" is taught in some grappling circles as just a variation on the more typical two-legs back sprawl. It doesn't have a separate name that I've ever heard. I don't know which variation drop bear prefers for non-sporting encounters. I do agree that if the attacker is not a skilled wrestler then the variation you prefer is safer for a street situation. (If the attacker is a skilled wrestler making a good technical shot, I would still go back to the full two legs back version. In that case, the risk of getting caught by a second attacker before I can disengage is less than the risk of getting dumped and caught underneath a skilled wrestler.)


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I mentioned the anti-grappling stuff because its relevant to the topic. That "Krav Maga" TD counter is just as ridiculous at the anti-grappling WC stuff. They were both concocted for the same reasons, and they serve the same purposes.
> 
> You should also post the Krav Maga kick in the fact to counter the double leg takedown.


Not true. It was not only totally irrelevant, it was taking a cheap shot at WC ... again!

Seeing you are the expert on Krav, perhaps you might like to post a video of 'the Krav kick'. It is quite possible I have never seen it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 9, 2014)

That first move will work, but I would only recommend that re-entry as a takedown with and elbow shot to soften him up a little. It is all good stuff, but in the wrong context. I watched a few other vids, and it all looks like kenpo that would never work. LOL


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 9, 2014)

KB froze on me. Mmm quite a bad WiFi signal. Mods please delete. Thanks.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> As I said, your approach was one&#8230; not the only&#8230; nor the best, depending on the context. So, if you're going to ask about alternatives, you need to understand the context first&#8230;
> 
> To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application&#8230; and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is&#8230; it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted&#8230; but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself&#8230; what I'd class as a "half sprawl"&#8230; in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play&#8230; the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent&#8230; which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution).
> 
> ...






			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Yeah&#8230; we're going to go back to Horatio&#8230;



Please elaborate?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not true. It was not only totally irrelevant, it was taking a cheap shot at WC ... again!



Taking a shot at anti-grappling isn't taking a shot at WC.



> Seeing you are the expert on Krav, perhaps you might like to post a video of 'the Krav kick'. It is quite possible I have never seen it.



Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;


----------



## Blindside (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;



Interesting as in "please armbar me?"


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Unless you happen to be good at getting off the line.



Sort off. And you should be angling out before you are sprawling because it defends before they start to get that good position. But a lot of that has to do with your set up and when they are going for that takedown.

To pull it off you need to be outfighting if you are in the ring or utilising the reactionary gap if you are on the street.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 9, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Interesting as in "please armbar me?"



Arm bars, sweeps, chokes, the list goes on and on.

Im always struck by the sheer ignorance shown in videos like that. For starters, no one is going to get you in a dangerous guard (i.e. A guard you feel that you need to fight out of) unless they're trained. If they're trained, you extending your arms forward while pressing your hips backwards is like a dream come true. 

The idea that you're going to be able to push my chin upwards, then switch back into seated position to punch my groin all while I'm in closed guard is hilarious. I implore anyone to try that even against a white belt in Bjj, it's not going to work.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Arm bars, sweeps, chokes, the list goes on and on.
> 
> Im always struck by the sheer ignorance shown in videos like that. For starters, no one is going to get you in a dangerous guard (i.e. A guard you feel that you need to fight out of) unless they're trained. If they're trained, you extending your arms forward while pressing your hips backwards is like a dream come true.
> 
> The idea that you're going to be able to push my chin upwards, then switch back into seated position to punch my groin all while I'm in closed guard is hilarious. I implore anyone to try that even against a white belt in Bjj, it's not going to work.



Or let's keep this street. Just use your head either to grind or headbutt. More painful and less risky. We do that grind a lot.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Or let's keep this street. Just use your head either to grind or headbutt. More painful and less risky. We do that grind a lot.



To get out of guard, or to punish people in your guard?


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> It would appear that Emin Boztepe and others disagree.



Er what? Can you back that up with anything? I mean the website for Emin's organisation here in Australia (Master Emin Boztepe) states pretty clearly:

" Anti Grappling, which he officially created according to the scientific beliefs of the Wing Tzun system" which is, really, exactly what I said 



Hanzou said:


> Yet clearly threatening enough to conjure up an entirely made up system to counter it.



"Threatening enough"? Again, get over yourself and your system. The fact that there is a larger awareness of ground fighting, and Emin (as well as others) decided to expand their system to help cover this range by utilising methods, principles, ideas, and concepts already extant within their methodologies does not, in any way, indicate that anyone was "threatened".



Hanzou said:


> Read Danny's post again. Its pretty clear that he is distancing himself from WC practitioners who have embraced anti-grappling as a legitimate aspect of Wing Chun.



What? He calls you out on your claims about the reasons for the development of such methods, points out that it's hardly across the board in Wing Chun, tries to teach you about differences throughout the range of Wing Chun lineages (families) He's not distancing himself from anything, other than your odd ideas.



Hanzou said:


> We've already established that it was created purely for marketing purposes, and that the techniques applied are ineffective to outright silly. What else should we call it?



No, you believe that it was created for marketing purposes, you feel the techniques are "outright silly" (I'd need to see a lot more of it before I made any complete assessment), simply because they don't match what you expect (here's the thing BJJ are ground specialists they are, frankly, fantastic at it but that doesn't mean that their approach is the only one, or the best in all contexts a different context requires a different answer so, unless you understand the context, you're not in a position to say whether or not it's "silly" or worse) and none of those would label it as "fraudulent", unless they were claiming it was an ancient form of tiger-wrestling or some such you really should learn what terms such as "fraudulent" actually mean, as your thread on the subject was completely off base and ignorant of what you were trying to discuss 



Hanzou said:


> See above.



Right back at ya, Horatio 



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd agree with most of this, except to note that what you are calling a "half-sprawl" is taught in some grappling circles as just a variation on the more typical two-legs back sprawl. It doesn't have a separate name that I've ever heard. I don't know which variation drop bear prefers for non-sporting encounters. I do agree that if the attacker is not a skilled wrestler then the variation you prefer is safer for a street situation. (If the attacker is a skilled wrestler making a good technical shot, I would still go back to the full two legs back version. In that case, the risk of getting caught by a second attacker before I can disengage is less than the risk of getting dumped and caught underneath a skilled wrestler.)



Hey Tony,

Yep, agreed with that but then again, I'm not training my guys to handle a trained grappler so much it's just not a high priority or likelihood here as said, the context needs to be understood first and foremost of course, given his video examples, I'd say that drop bear is talking about the "standard" two-leg version but he can correct if that's not the case.



Transk53 said:


> Please elaborate?



Shakespeare. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Act 1, Scene 5, lines 167-8.

Hamlet: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> To get out of guard, or to punish people in your guard?



Either they let you out or they are punished for it. And your hands are free to do stuff. In mma you would generally crack them in the head for example.

In the street you would crack them in the head then steal their wallet or something.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Er what? Can you back that up with anything? I mean the website for Emin's organisation here in Australia (Master Emin Boztepe) states pretty clearly:
> 
> " Anti Grappling, which he officially created according to the scientific beliefs of the Wing Tzun system" which is, really, exactly what I said



Take a look at anti grappling. It clearly flies in the face of any sound principle within Wing Chun. Whereas Wing Chun is an effective style of MA, anti-grappling is pretty ineffective.



> "Threatening enough"? Again, get over yourself and your system. The fact that there is a larger awareness of ground fighting, and Emin (as well as others) decided to expand their system to help cover this range by utilising methods, principles, ideas, and concepts already extant within their methodologies does not, in any way, indicate that anyone was "threatened".



Again, the methods, principles, and concepts fail when it comes to anti-grappling, because while WC is effective, anti-grappling is ineffective. This btw supports Danny T's assessment that it was a marketing gimmick.



> No, you believe that it was created for marketing purposes,



Danny T said it was created for marketing purposes.



> you feel the techniques are "outright silly"



Because they don't work. There's plenty of threads where experienced grapplers pick apart anti-grappling and show WHY it's ineffective. That ineffectiveness again supports the notion that it was just created to make money.



> (I'd need to see a lot more of it before I made any complete assessment),



Then maybe you should do that before participating in this discussion? Just a thought.



> simply because they don't match what you expect (here's the thing BJJ are ground specialists they are, frankly, fantastic at it but that doesn't mean that their approach is the only one, or the best in all contexts a different context requires a different answer so, unless you understand the context, you're not in a position to say whether or not it's "silly" or worse) and none of those would label it as "fraudulent", unless they were claiming it was an ancient form of tiger-wrestling or some such you really should learn what terms such as "fraudulent" actually mean, as your thread on the subject was completely off base and ignorant of what you were trying to discuss



Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Take a look at anti grappling. It clearly flies in the face of any sound principle within Wing Chun. Whereas Wing Chun is an effective style of MA, anti-grappling is pretty ineffective.



I have looked at it, in various iterations from a range of instructors&#8230; and would like you to explain Wing Chun principles, and point out where their "anti-grappling", in your words, "clearly flies in the face" of such principles. Saying that you don't think it's effective is not the same thing, you understand.



Hanzou said:


> Again, the methods, principles, and concepts fail when it comes to anti-grappling, because while WC is effective, anti-grappling is ineffective. This btw supports Danny T's assessment that it was a marketing gimmick.



Danny didn't say it was a marketing gimmick, he said the name was coined by one organisation largely for marketing purposes (i.e. to tell people that they had an answer for ground work). And whether you regard it as effective or not is not really relevant to a discussion of the principles of Wing Chun.



Hanzou said:


> Danny T said it was created for marketing purposes.



No, he didn't. He said it was named for marketing purposes. Go back and check&#8230; I'll wait.



Hanzou said:


> Because they don't work. There's plenty of threads where experienced grapplers pick apart anti-grappling and show WHY it's ineffective. That ineffectiveness again supports the notion that it was just created to make money.



No, it doesn't&#8230; it might support the idea that the people who created it aren't as well versed as a specialist in the area&#8230; or it might support the idea that the specialists aren't who it's designed to go against&#8230; or any of a number of other aspects. Your bias is not the reality.



Hanzou said:


> Then maybe you should do that before participating in this discussion? Just a thought.



Well, that's one way to take a comment out of context&#8230; I have seen a fair bit, but not what I would consider the entire curriculum. In fact, I don't know what percentage I have seen&#8230; I've seen various approaches from different areas and instructors, some better than others, but that's not enough to make a comment on everything that's done. That was my point.

How about you? Just how extensive is your exposure to Wing Chun anti-grappling? Is it just a few choice you-tube videos, or do you have something else to back things up? 



Hanzou said:


> Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.



And, one more time because you keep missing the simple reality here, ineffective is not the same as fraudulent. Get that idea out of your head, as all it shows is that you are unable to understand actual English words properly in their context.

As far as what you're in a position to say, is it really created to counter your particular art? Or was it created to deal with the larger awareness of ground fighting in the general populace, but not necessarily "skilled" ground work? Do you understand how they are actually quite different?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;



I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.

1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> I have looked at it, in various iterations from a range of instructors and would like you to explain Wing Chun principles, and point out where their "anti-grappling", in your words, "clearly flies in the face" of such principles. Saying that you don't think it's effective is not the same thing, you understand.



I *know *it doesn't work. Again, any experienced grappler can look at it and tell you it's ineffective. It's not difficult to determine what works in grappling and what doesn't.

Wing Chun wasn't designed to fight from that range, and that's painfully obvious.



> Danny didn't say it was a marketing gimmick, he said the name was coined by one organisation largely for marketing purposes (i.e. to tell people that they had an answer for ground work). And whether you regard it as effective or not is not really relevant to a discussion of the principles of Wing Chun.
> No, he didn't. He said it was named for marketing purposes. Go back and check I'll wait.



At this point it's best to let Danny pop back in and clarify what he meant.




> No, it doesn't it might support the idea that the people who created it aren't as well versed as a specialist in the area or it might support the idea that the specialists aren't who it's designed to go against or any of a number of other aspects. Your bias is not the reality.



The fact that it's called "anti-grappling" implies that it was designed to fight against skilled grapplers, and was a cash grab to capitalize on Bjj and MMA's explosion in popularity.




> Well, that's one way to take a comment out of context I have seen a fair bit, but not what I would consider the entire curriculum. In fact, I don't know what percentage I have seen I've seen various approaches from different areas and instructors, some better than others, but that's not enough to make a comment on everything that's done. That was my point.



And I have yet to see anything out of anti-grappling that looks marginally effective.



> And, one more time because you keep missing the simple reality here, ineffective is not the same as fraudulent. Get that idea out of your head, as all it shows is that you are unable to understand actual English words properly in their context.



When someone creates an ineffective combat system out of thin air, we tend to call it fraudulent around these parts. Why? Because it doesn't do what it was marketed to do.



> As far as what you're in a position to say, is it really created to counter your particular art? Or was it created to deal with the larger awareness of ground fighting in the general populace, but not necessarily "skilled" ground work? Do you understand how they are actually quite different?



Considering that anti-grappling popped up right when Bjj gained popularity, it's pretty hard to not recognize the purpose behind its creation. I mean wrestling has been around for centuries, no one in WC or WT created "anti-grappling" back then to counter that form of grappling.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.
> 
> 1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
> 2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.



You can actually break closed guard with your elbows. He simply didn't do it correctly.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 10, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.
> 
> 1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
> 2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.



Actually the elbow to inner thigh is a legit way to open the guard, but usually has to be accompanied by backward pressure against the feet, which this guy didn't do.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Taking a shot at anti-grappling isn't taking a shot at WC.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;



The embarrassing thing about this is that it's completely unnecessary. If he's purporting to teach street self-defense, he should know that no mugger is ever going to jump out of a dark alley and pull guard on you.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The embarrassing thing about this is that it's completely unnecessary. If he's purporting to teach street self-defense, he should know that no mugger is ever going to jump out of a dark alley and pull guard on you.


I tend to disagree. Certainly you are right to say that no mugger is going to pull guard on you in an alley but if Krav is to be considered to be a comprehensive fighting system then we need to at least teach basic defences against situations that we might find ourselves in. For example, with the popularity of MMA it is possible that more people might have a basic understanding of grappling. When we do end up on the ground it is quite possible that we could end up in the guard. From a practical point of view, if we end up on the ground as someone did in the train station video, with someone on our chest, then in rolling out of that you end up in the guard. If your attacker closes the guard and you don't know how to escape your training is lacking. I even teach it to my karate guys.

In training years back we used to train to escape and pass the guard into a side mount then somehow move around and into the mount. I don't see any real value for me in that sort of training now. I just want to get back on my feet ASAP. 
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.



Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, I wouldn't call it fraudulent. Arrogant, ignorant, and ill-advised maybe, but not fraudulent. I'm sure most of the practitioners teaching that sort of "anti-grappling" sincerely believe it can be effective.

I'm sure many of the FMA practitioners around here have the same reaction to the unarmed knife defenses taught in most martial arts. If they can refrain from continually jumping in and telling everyone else how suicidal their knife disarms would be against a skilled Kali practitioner, I'm sure we BJJer's can cut other people some slack as well.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

Anyway here are 57 guard passes that work. Pick one.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6OXHhvKaSA


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Anyway here are 57 guard passes that work. Pick one.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6OXHhvKaSA


Most of which have absolutely no place in the context of SD or as a replacement for the Krav one that *Hanzou* posted.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, I wouldn't call it fraudulent. Arrogant, ignorant, and ill-advised maybe, but not fraudulent. I'm sure most of the practitioners teaching that sort of "anti-grappling" sincerely believe it can be effective.
> 
> I'm sure many of the FMA practitioners around here have the same reaction to the unarmed knife defenses taught in most martial arts. If they can refrain from continually jumping in and telling everyone else how suicidal their knife disarms would be against a skilled Kali practitioner, I'm sure we BJJer's can cut other people some slack as well.



Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.

Anti-grapplers claim that they can defeat skilled grapplers with their abilities. That's the difference.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.
> 
> Anti-grapplers claim that they can defeat skilled grapplers with their abilities. That's the difference.


:BSmeter:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> :BSmeter:



If I created a system called anti-knife fighting, it would be safe to assume that my system handles all forms of knife-fighting. That would include those highly skilled with the blade.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Read Danny's post again. Its pretty clear that he is distancing himself from WC practitioners who have embraced anti-grappling as a legitimate aspect of Wing Chun.



    [FONT=&quot]Hanzou, dont read more into what I wrote. You lumped all wc families together with your statement; Wing Chun guys conjured up.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]I said, There is an organization that came up with the anti grappling *term *as a marketing tool.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]My point was, that organization uses the term to describe what they do. [/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]My point in the guard reference was that just because one does something doesnt mean everyone else associated in some manner does the same. Like not all grapplers use the guard. [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]It's liken to lumping all Brazilian Jujitsu as Gracie Jujitsu. GJJ is BJJ but not all BJJ is GJJ.

[/FONT]


			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.


Hmm, maybe you don't. However your use of the term 'we' in this part of the discussion suggests BJJ people so you should check out some of the Gracie Instructional Videos showing some very very dangerous and what I would term as 'misguided' BJJ knife disarms and defenses.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Danny T said:


> Hmm, maybe you don't. However your use of the term 'we' in this part of the discussion suggests BJJ people so you should check out some of the Gracie Instructional Videos showing some very very dangerous and what I would term as 'misguided' BJJ knife disarms and defenses.



What makes you think I haven't checked then out (if we're talking about them same thing)?

I'd put more stock in those knife defenses than that anti-grappling nonsense any day of the week.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I haven't checked then out (if we're talking about them same thing)?
> 
> I'd put more stock in those knife defenses than that anti-grappling nonsense any day of the week.



Speaking as a BJJer who has also done some knife training, I would not.

They might work, if you were desparate and lucky, against an unskilled attacker. That's about the same as I would say for the "anti-grappling" that has you so riled up.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If I created a system called anti-knife fighting, it would be safe to assume that my system handles all forms of knife-fighting. That would include those highly skilled with the blade.


And it would be safe to assume that that is what I hope I am teaching. I would never claim that my training could guarantee to stop people highly skilled with a blade but it is not confined to static strikes, it is dynamic, it is conducted with real knives and we do train it almost every training session both in Karate and Krav. 

Which is a nice intro to your next video ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKh1NkDGcU


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJer who has also done some knife training, I would not.
> 
> They might work, if you were desparate and lucky, against an unskilled attacker. That's about the same as I would say for the "anti-grappling" that has you so riled up.



I put more stock into it because I understand limb and joint manipulation via my Bjj training, and we treat it as an extension of the arm. That's the basis of the knife training I've done in Bjj. 

Of course, we've always made it clear that you're probably going to get cut or stabbed in that situation, and you should only attempt it if you're out of options. That's a bit different than  anti-grappling's claims.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> And it would be safe to assume that that is what I hope I am teaching. I would never claim that my training could guarantee to stop people highly skilled with a blade but it is not confined to static strikes, it is dynamic, it is conducted with real knives and we do train it almost every training session both in Karate and Krav.
> 
> Which is a nice intro to your next video ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKh1NkDGcU



Are you wanting critiques of that one too? Because I have plenty.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Are you wanting critiques of that one too? Because I have plenty.


Yes please. I do too!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I put more stock into it because I understand limb and joint manipulation via my Bjj training, and we treat it as an extension of the arm. That's the basis of the knife training I've done in Bjj.
> 
> Of course, we've always made it clear that you're probably going to get cut or stabbed in that situation, and you should only attempt it if you're out of options. That's a bit different than  anti-grappling's claims.



You understand limb and joint manipulation, but perhaps not use of the knife.  It's the same problem some of the Krav guys in these videos have when they come up with defenses against double-legs or guards that they don't understand.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I *know *it doesn't work. Again, any experienced grappler can look at it and tell you it's ineffective. It's not difficult to determine what works in grappling and what doesn't.
> 
> Wing Chun wasn't designed to fight from that range, and that's painfully obvious.
> 
> ...



I'm curious to know when you say the WT anti-grappling is ineffective, against whom do you mean?

I have no experience with BJJ or Judo and haven't wrestled with anyone apart from my mates and not since I was about 8. Could it work against me?


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You understand limb and joint manipulation, but perhaps not use of the knife.  It's the same problem some of the Krav guys in these videos have when they come up with defenses against double-legs or guards that they don't understand.


Tony, just as an aside. *Hanzou* posted these videos as evidence of Krav being useless or at least ineffective for self defence. What he did was posted video of a guy who claims to be something he isn't, teaching techniques that may have come from his Judo background. Wherever they came from they are not what I have seen in Krav and in time I will also post my comment on the slashing knife _defence_, or lack of.

Again, I would love Rich Parsons or Brian to comment on it as it is right up their alley, but please feel free to voice your opinion.
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> Yes please. I do too!



Okay ...

The attacker comes in with a slow slash that actually comes up at least a foot short of where the attacker is standing. (Seriously, watch the overhead view. The defender could have stood perfectly still and been safe.)

The attacker allows the slash to bring his arm in an un-necessarily wide arc as if he was swinging a heavier weapon like a stick or machete.  This, plus the fact that the demonstrator is moving faster than his uke is the only reason he is able to get almost completely behind uke.

Good luck catching the knife hand if you haven't done something to soften up the attacker first.

No control of the attacker's free hand to keep him from punching you in the face, passing the knife to the other hand, etc.

The transition from the low grip to the bent arm lock is completely strength based. There are ways to make that transition more technical.  If he had his wrapping arm a few inches higher in the initial grip, then he could be applying a straight arm-lock pressure. He could use that arm-lock pressure plus some off-balancing to disrupt uke's balance and structure and encourage a reaction in the direction he wants to go. Since he doesn't do any of that, there's nothing to stop the attacker form resisting the upwards pressure long enough to punch the defender in the face, pass the knife to the other hand, and start stabbing while the defender has both hands tied up.

Bottom line, the technique as demonstrated requires not only an incompetent attack, but that the defender be faster and stronger than his attacker.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> Tony, just as an aside. *Hanzou* posted these videos as evidence of Krav being useless or at least ineffective for self defence. What he did was posted video of a guy who claims to be something he isn't, teaching techniques that may have come from his Judo background. Wherever they came from they are not what I have seen in Krav and in time I will also post my comment on the slashing knife _defence_, or lack of.
> 
> Again, I would love Rich Parsons or Brian to comment on it as it is right up their alley, but please feel free to voice your opinion.
> :asian:



Understood. Maybe I should have said "the same problem some of the guys who _claim _to be Krav (or WC or whatever) have when they come up with these defenses."


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You understand limb and joint manipulation, but perhaps not use of the knife.  It's the same problem some of the Krav guys in these videos have when they come up with defenses against double-legs or guards that they don't understand.



Again, you treat it as an extension of the arm, and you apply the same principles as unarmed fighting. That's pretty much every martial art vs a knife; The details change, but the fundamentals don't. You control the arm, you control the knife. 

It really isn't the same as attempting to apply old fundamentals and new details against grappling. Grappling is far too complex for that.

You may notice this when new people enter your Bjj gym for the first time and roll against a seasoned student. The newbie is like on an alien planet not know what to do, while the Bjj exponent uses him as a grappling dummy.

Example;






We *know* how to stop a knifer; you control the arm holding the knife. Even the guy who was getting knifed up in that video got control of the knifer's hand a few times;






The difficult part is getting that control. If you're used to gaining that control, its far easier to gain that control when it counts.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I'm curious to know when you say the WT anti-grappling is ineffective, against whom do you mean?
> 
> I have no experience with BJJ or Judo and haven't wrestled with anyone apart from my mates and not since I was about 8. Could it work against me?



You wouldn't be using grappling to attack someone. Only someone confident in their ability to grapple would utilize offensive grappling to attack someone.

In my case, I would use pretty much nothing but Bjj the entire time. Clinch, Take down, gaining the superior position (preferably the mount), and going for a quick choke (if I needed to remove you from a fight).

In short, anti-grappling was created to stop me, not you.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay ...
> 
> The attacker comes in with a slow slash that actually comes up at least a foot short of where the attacker is standing. (Seriously, watch the overhead view. The defender could have stood perfectly still and been safe.)
> 
> ...


To be honest I'm not concerned with the speed of the attack. He is demonstrating his technique. I'm not concerned that the knife comes up short either for the reason that the left hand on the elbow is restricting the arm movement which normally would be a good strategy, except against a knife. I would suggest that against that type of reverse slash it is relatively easy to capture the arm in a relatively safe manner but trying to catch the arm with the hands like that could be the cause of your demise. Catching the arm with the hands does have a place but not where the attacker can vary the level of the attack with relative ease as in the back slash. 

Another thing here is that the slash is pretty much horizontal. In reality it will probably be rising, as unless the knife is in the back of the hand the knife hand will turn under after the first slash and be coming up, something that this defence won't handle well. In this demo the attacker is making a big slow turn which comes up higher than I would think of as natural. The defence we practise covers the area from the upper thigh to the face. One technique covers all levels. That is not true of the defence shown. 

Then we come to the free hand. I always teach that people have to be aware of the other hand and when my guys have the knife I insist that they use it when they can when someone is attempting to disarm them. In practise if your technique is clean the other hand does not come into play. In the demonstration shown the technique relied on strength, as you pointed out. A female or smaller person may not have been able to perform that and in Krav it is designed so smaller, less strong people can still prevail. In most cases that comes down to how you teach a technique. 

And of course the arm bar needs to be on and effective to stop the other hand being used. If I was teaching that bar the elbow would have been on my chest making a fulcrum I wouldn't have been grabbing for my wrist for the figure four at that time either. That type of bar would not be my first choice. 

I also thought the stripping of the knife was a bit clumsy as well. Turning the wrist to take the knife out of the hand is great, just not from that position. There are better options available.

Always interesting to look at what others are teaching, even if it is to look for pitfalls.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> In short, anti-grappling was created to stop me, not you.


I doubt you were foremost in anyone's mind.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again, you treat it as an extension of the arm, and you apply the same principles as unarmed fighting. That's pretty much every martial art vs a knife; The details change, but the fundamentals don't. You control the arm, you control the knife.
> 
> We *know* how to stop a knifer; you control the arm holding the knife. Even the guy who was getting knifed up in that video got control of the knifer's hand a few times.
> 
> The difficult part is getting that control. If you're used to gaining that control, its far easier to gain that control when it counts.


The only thing you have right is the bit about controlling the arm. Unless you are practising against unscripted attacks every time you trained I doubt *you* could even stop a little kid with a knife. We practise hours of this stuff but I could never claim to *know* how to stop a knifer. You go up against someone wanting to kill you and I'll have my money on the guy with the knife. That is why all our training is 'get out of Dodge'. Training against a knife attack is training for a situation you just don't want to be in.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> The only thing you have right is the bit about controlling the arm. Unless you are practising against unscripted attacks every time you trained I doubt *you* could even stop a little kid with a knife.



Again, when the fundamentals are sound, the only thing left is the details. I've controlled the limbs of people a lot larger and stronger than myself while they were trying to cave my face in. I don't know why you believe a knife suddenly alters the fundamentals to the point where I can't control a kid's arm. That's nonsense.

As for practicing against unscripted attacks every time I train; That's what we do when we roll. And yeah, that takes place every time I train.



> We practise hours of this stuff but I could never claim to *know* how to stop a knifer.



I didn't say you could stop a knifer every time, I said you know what you need to do to stop them. You actually being able to accomplish that goal is a different thing entirely.



> You go up against someone wanting to kill you and I'll have my money on the guy with the knife. That is why all our training is 'get out of Dodge'. Training against a knife attack is training for a situation you just don't want to be in.



Agreed. Which is fortunate that our knife training is merely an extension of our existing training, not something else entirely.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> Most of which have absolutely no place in the context of SD or as a replacement for the Krav one that *Hanzou* posted.
> :asian:



You have used guard passes in a self defence situation?


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You have used guard passes in a self defence situation?



I think Kman is looking for guard passes that include groin punches and hair pulls.

Nevermind the guard passes that actually work....


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I haven't checked then out (if we're talking about them same thing)?
> 
> I'd put more stock in those knife defenses than that anti-grappling nonsense any day of the week.



You are arguing against the point you are making. If you want a skill you go to a guy who has that skill. Learn their whole system and take it from there. Not come up with some half mashed programe of your own. Based on who knows what.

And yes I have seen sports fighters fall into that trap.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I think Kman is looking for guard passes that include groin punches and hair pulls.
> 
> Nevermind the guard passes that actually work....




Groin hair pulls is the ultimate street!

Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 10, 2014)

Great discussion!*


Yes, if up against a blade* and you can see it before hand then try to get out of there or draw a weapon/tool so that you can even out the situation or place it in your favor.  If you can't see the blade until the attack has already started then deal with the situation as it unfolds and if you can create distance and bring a tool/weapon to bear then the sooner the better!  Edged attacks are just so very dangerous and deadly.  K-man is right in that even a young committed 12 year old can be deadly with a blade.

What was shown in the video could work and might work under the right circumstances.  Like K-Man I am not worried about the set up to the technique or the speeds they are operating at because it is just a teaching/demo.  If you can get and wrap the knife wielding arm you have a chance of potentially some thing good happening.  Regardless of what system you study or if you even study at all.  As I get older my main goal in dealing with an armed attacker *is not to be unarmed*.  I do not want to deal with a blade wielding thug empty handed and I go to great lengths to ensure that I will not be in that situation. (ie. I concealed carry, have knives and a tactical flashlight on my person and if moving about particularly at night or in a dangerous place I have some tool in my hand at all times) One thing about our training is that what we do empty handed also translates with a tool.  Still, even taking precautions I have to make sure I get unarmed versus the knife training in regularly. (like every class which is about 4 times a day with private and semi private lessons)  *Just in case*.   Yet, even with lots of training experience and some experience in violent encounters *I really want nothing to do with unarmed self-defense versus a knife*.  Yet, if it ever happens you can bet I am going to go 100% to seal the deal.  That much is a guarantee.  That is a mind set that is very, very important!!!  Still, I want nothing to do with being empty handed versus a knife. (I repeat that often)  

The last marking knife session I held everyone and I mean everyone including myself was cut and several practitioner's had what could have been fatal cuts and or stab wounds. Though we had what I would call some success as well.   *Empty hand edged weapon defenses are just plain scary*!  Can they work, sure.  Do you want to put yourself in that situation and to the test?  *Hell no*!   Train and be prepared but try to avoid it at all cost!  Your awareness and avoidance skills are really important! Do not put yourself in situations where violence can occur.  *Use your common sense!!!

*In training my advice is to try to have an approach that has balance:

Technique training
Solo training
Contact training (focus mitts, heavy bag, etc.)
Scenario Based Training
Sparring
Submission Grappling

All can be done both empty handed and with training tools/weapons introduced.  Do not limit yourself!

Of course also take into account your age, medical condition, etc.  There is a law of diminishing returns if you body has years of 
hard contact and at some point you have to manage what you are doing efficiently so that you will be ready for a violent encounter
and not incapable of defending yourself because your training busted your body up to much.  *Find the right balance!

*I have seen both good and bad *in all martial systems* there is no 100% guaranteed system that will always work and you never need to train it.  No instead you need to train regularly in the Martial Sciences.  Train regularly your cardiovascular health both aerobic and anaerobic.  You need to train your attributes and get in significant strength training.  Try to be fit and in shape.  If you do everything right you *probably have a chance* in a violent encounter.  *That is all we can ask for!*


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> And it would be safe to assume that that is what I hope I am teaching. I would never claim that my training could guarantee to stop people highly skilled with a blade but it is not confined to static strikes, it is dynamic, it is conducted with real knives and we do train it almost every training session both in Karate and Krav.
> 
> Which is a nice intro to your next video ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKh1NkDGcU



I have tried that lock combination against guys without knives just restraining them. And yeah? Sort of sometimes made it work.

By the way real sharps attack.
French national quizzed over security guard stabbing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I did a thread on it.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 10, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You are arguing against the point you are making. If you want a skill you go to a guy who has that skill. Learn their whole system and take it from there. Not come up with some half mashed programe of your own. Based on who knows what.




Actually I'm not.

There's little need for me to learn how to become an expert knife fighter, because the chances of me encountering an expert knife fighter in an altercation is slim to nonexistent.

I'm far more likely to get into an altercation with someone larger than myself. That person larger than myself is likely to have played football or wrestled in high school or even college. Heck, maybe even took some MMA or Bjj. Those chances exceed the chances that I'm going to run into Crocodile Dundee and a 10" knife in an alleyway.

Also I wouldn't call the Gracie self-defense system "half mashed". The system has the history to back up a lot of its claims. 

Unlike the creators of anti-grappling....



> And yes I have seen sports fighters fall into that trap.



I bet you have.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually I'm not.
> 
> There's little need for me to learn how to become an expert knife fighter, because the chances of me encountering an expert knife fighter in an altercation is slim to nonexistent.
> 
> ...



I don't know the Gracie system so I don't know if it is legit or not. I like to get my knife fighting in when I can because for me well rounded is well rounded. But on the occasion that I do do knife fighting I generally try to get it from tried and tested guys.

Yes anti grappling is mostly terrible. But it maybe better than ignoring it. And learning new things can sometimes turn out a bit terrible.

Seriously you should see my judo at the moment.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man said:


> To be honest I'm not concerned with the speed of the attack. He is demonstrating his technique. I'm not concerned that the knife comes up short either for the reason that the left hand on the elbow is restricting the arm movement which normally would be a good strategy, except against a knife.



I'm not concerned about the speed of the attack exactly. It's fine to demo a technique slowly so students can see it clearly. My complaint is the _relative_ speeds of the attacker and the defender. Part of the reason the defender is able to get to the control position he does is that he is moving faster than his attacker. You can't count on being able to move faster than your opponent. In fact, given the processing delay between action and reaction, it's safer to train with the expectation that you may be slower than your opponent.

The reason I have a problem with the attacker attacking the empty air a foot in front of the defender is that it changes the necessary timing, distance, and movement angle of the defense. If the attacker had come in with the correct distancing and the defender had moved exactly the way he did in the video, he would have been cut.

I'm assuming the defense is supposed to be against an unskilled attacker, so I'm not even going into how easily a halfway competent knife fighter could have negated his control.  (In fairness, defending unarmed against a halfway competent knife fighter is a bad, bad situation for anyone to be in.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually I'm not.
> 
> There's little need for me to learn how to become an expert knife fighter, because the chances of me encountering an expert knife fighter in an altercation is slim to nonexistent.



Eh, I can teach someone to be halfway competent with a knife a whole lot faster than I can teach them to be a halfway competent grappler.  I'd say that if you are attacked by someone with a knife the odds that they are skilled enough to easily defeat the standard Gracie knife defenses are significantly higher than the odds of an unarmed assailant being a skilled wrestler or jiujiteiro.

Speaking as a BJJ brother, you know how annoyingly ignorant people who nothing about grappling sound when they talk about how easily they can stop a double-leg takedown with their striking skills? They have that confidence because they are extending the principles that they understand (regarding striking) into a domain they do not understand (grappling).

Don't make the same mistake they do. Trust me, there is a lot to the knife that you are not getting.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again, when the fundamentals are sound, the only thing left is the details. I've controlled the limbs of people a lot larger and stronger than myself while they were trying to cave my face in. I don't know why you believe a knife suddenly alters the fundamentals to the point where I can't control a kid's arm. That's nonsense.


And you think I haven't? Every class I pick the biggest strongest guys to demonstrate technique. BJJ is not the only martial art that trains against full resistance. Is the guy trying to cave my face in? No, but I'll guarantee the same could be said for your training partner too.

As for a knife not changing the fundamentals ...  Really?  



Hanzou said:


> As for practicing against unscripted attacks every time I train; That's what we do when we roll. And yeah, that takes place every time I train.



Against knives? Every time you train? Really?



Hanzou said:


> I didn't say you could stop a knifer every time, I said you know what you need to do to stop them. You actually being able to accomplish that goal is a different thing entirely.


That is not what you said. Here is what you actually claimed ...  _"We *know* how to stop a knifer; you control the arm holding the knife." _

_"The difficult part is getting that control. If you're used to gaining that control, its far easier to gain that control when it counts."_

To which I would say "Good Luck Sunshine". Knowing what to do and being able to do it are two different things.



Hanzou said:


> Agreed. Which is fortunate that our knife training is merely an extension of our existing training, not something else entirely.


It is indeed fortunate that your training is so comprehensive. :lfao:



Hanzou said:


> I think Kman is looking for guard passes that include groin punches and hair pulls.
> 
> Nevermind the guard passes that actually work....


Um! No. I didn't say that and the release I teach has neither. It is a push against the ribs, one knee to the coccyx, other leg pushed back, elbow into one of two points on the leg and move back. Pass the guard if you want or just get away. No groin, no hair pull. Sorry to disappoint. 

Of the 57 guard passes or thereabouts, almost all were in the context of competition. There were maybe a couple that satisfied my criteria to regain my feet.



Hanzou said:


> There's little need for me to learn how to become an expert knife fighter, because the chances of me encountering an expert knife fighter in an altercation is slim to nonexistent.


Yet you claim to practise unscripted training against knives every session because it is part of your normal training! What a waste of time and effort.    Mmm! Not sure of the Horatio tag. Pinocchio might be more to the point. Good luck with that training against a knife if you ever need to use it. 



Hanzou said:


> I'm far more likely to get into an altercation with someone larger than myself. That person larger than myself is likely to have played football or wrestled in high school or even college. Heck, maybe even took some MMA or Bjj. Those chances exceed the chances that I'm going to run into Crocodile Dundee and a 10" knife in an alleyway.


Well to be honest I hope I won't be in an altercation with anyone. After all, that is what my training is about. However, I'm not at all concerned about running into Mick Dundee with his 10" knife. I'm much more concerned about the little punk on drugs with his steak knife or his box cutter.



Hanzou said:


> Also I wouldn't call the Gracie self-defense system "half mashed". The system has the history to back up a lot of its claims.
> 
> Unlike the creators of anti-grappling....


Now I know nothing about the Gracie self defence system so I will not comment. But I did read your reference to anti-grappling. It is outside the scope of this thread so I will start a new thread. I think a few of your more outlandish statements should be questioned.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not concerned about the speed of the attack exactly. It's fine to demo a technique slowly so students can see it clearly. My complaint is the _relative_ speeds of the attacker and the defender. Part of the reason the defender is able to get to the control position he does is that he is moving faster than his attacker. You can't count on being able to move faster than your opponent. In fact, given the processing delay between action and reaction, it's safer to train with the expectation that you may be slower than your opponent.
> 
> The reason I have a problem with the attacker attacking the empty air a foot in front of the defender is that it changes the necessary timing, distance, and movement angle of the defense. If the attacker had come in with the correct distancing and the defender had moved exactly the way he did in the video, he would have been cut.
> 
> I'm assuming the defense is supposed to be against an unskilled attacker, so I'm not even going into how easily a halfway competent knife fighter could have negated his control.  (In fairness, defending unarmed against a halfway competent knife fighter is a bad, bad situation for anyone to be in.)


Agree totally. It had heaps wrong with it.
:asian:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2014)

When it comes to a bladed weapon;
1st defense, Evade, stun, create distance, draw or get something in your hands.
If you are unable to create distance, upon stunning immediately control the weapon arm And The Weapon Hand while zoning to the outside quadrant evading the opposite hand or possibly a second weapon.
If on the ground you must control the weapon arm and hand. It the hand is not controlled you will get cut or stabbed.

What most people even trained martial arts don't understand or accept is you may be able to take the power out of my punch but it takes very little force to cut or stab so if I can touch you the edge or the point you will be cut or stabbed. That is not a maybe that is an absolute. A 1 inch blade can make a 2 1/2 - 3 inch deep cut through muscle and can be stabbed almost 4 inches. A 4 inch pocket folder can be thrust deep into the heart or complete through the kidneys. So when you control the weapon arm you had better control the weapon hand also. The guy may not be able to punch very hard but cutting and poking is very easy.


----------



## K-man (Oct 10, 2014)

Danny T said:


> When it comes to a bladed weapon;
> 1st defense, Evade, stun, create distance, draw or get something in your hands.
> If you are unable to create distance, upon stunning immediately control the weapon arm And The Weapon Hand while zoning to the outside quadrant evading the opposite hand or possibly a second weapon.
> If on the ground you must control the weapon arm and hand. It the hand is not controlled you will get cut or stabbed.
> ...


Danny, I note on your profile Kali and PT and Silat so I assume you are doing a fair bit of training with and against knives. I just question the order in your post. I agree that you need to stun if possible but you have that as the first priority after evasion. If the opportunity to strike is there, fine, hit him at the first opportunity, but I would prefer to evade and immobilise the weapon arm first, then hit, knee or whatever until there is no longer the will to resist. I want the knife controlled as soon as is practical. I'm not going to be trying to get a strike in first.  
:asian:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2014)

K-man, great question.

  &#8216;If&#8217; the situation were such that I could simple evade and create distance I would.
  The probability of being in a knife attack and having the time or space to simply create distance is nil.
  Have been in 2 different knife attacks and in both there was no time. In one I was stabbed in the right side into the lung. Was attacked from behind. As I turned I evaded and parried the second thrust with my rt arm and palmed the attacker with my left hand in the face. That strike allowed me the opportunity to wrap the weapon arm with my left arm and control the weapon hand with my rt driving the guy face first into the ground. He ended up with a broken arm and I ended up in the hospital with a collapsed rt lung.


  The other it was while in a military action in Central America in 74. In that one I saw the attack coming as I breached a doorway. Was turning to the rt, had I not turned I probably would have been stabbed in the neck area, the turn was the evasion of my body out of the attack arc and my rt arm receive the blow. My weapon (Colt 45) struck the guy across his face as I fired off a few rounds.


  In both cases the attacker was stunned as a part of the evade process and I was able to follow up.

  In the training we do in Pekiti-Tirsia there are always multiple attackers with multiple weapons. Getting tied up with one for any length of time can be detrimental. So we evade and stun and create distance or if creating distance is not possible then the stun is the impetus for the controlling of the weapon arm and hand. The stun is a part of the movement toward the controlling action.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2014)

K-man said:


> Agree totally. It had heaps wrong with it.
> :asian:



By the way some of the kravers I spoke to said the guy was not legitimate.

So I googled mont aizik fraud.
Moni Aizik: A Study in Martial Deceit - Part 2 | Black Belt Forums

What's happening to CKM / Moni Aizik - Krav Maga Worldwide Israeli Self Defense Forums


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2014)

Danny T said:


> K-man, great question.
> 
> &#8216;If&#8217; the situation were such that I could simple evade and create distance I would.
> The probability of being in a knife attack and having the time or space to simply create distance is nil.
> ...



That seems to be consistent with what I have been shown.


----------



## K-man (Oct 11, 2014)

drop bear said:


> By the way some of the kravers I spoke to said the guy was not legitimate.
> 
> So I googled mont aizik fraud.
> Moni Aizik: A Study in Martial Deceit - Part 2 | Black Belt Forums
> ...


I alluded to that but as we aren't into fraud busting on MT I left it to others to find out for themselves.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2014)

K-man said:


> I alluded to that but as we aren't into fraud busting on MT I left it to others to find out for themselves.



Fair enough.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 11, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Eh, I can teach someone to be halfway competent with a knife a whole lot faster than I can teach them to be a halfway competent grappler.  I'd say that if you are attacked by someone with a knife the odds that they are skilled enough to easily defeat the standard Gracie knife defenses are significantly higher than the odds of an unarmed assailant being a skilled wrestler or jiujiteiro.
> 
> Speaking as a BJJ brother, you know how annoyingly ignorant people who nothing about grappling sound when they talk about how easily they can stop a double-leg takedown with their striking skills? They have that confidence because they are extending the principles that they understand (regarding striking) into a domain they do not understand (grappling).
> 
> Don't make the same mistake they do. Trust me, there is a lot to the knife that you are not getting.



Tony, I'll never make a video or a book showcasing my knife defense skills. While I'm confident that my skills can save me if some person cornered me with a knife, in no way do I feel that I know everything there is to know about knife defense.

In fact, if the opportunity ever came to study some FMA knife fighting, I'd definitely go for it. I have a few Balisongs that I've collected over the years that I would love to learn to actually use.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 11, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I *know *it doesn't work. Again, any experienced grappler can look at it and tell you it's ineffective. It's not difficult to determine what works in grappling and what doesn't.



No, you don't. You have an idea that it doesn't work&#8230; based on a range of things, such as your experience in ground work, as well as (more importantly) your expectation of what it's actually designed to handle. You even allude to it here (and are more blatant later) by mentioning "experienced grapplers"&#8230; who says it's meant to deal with them? As far as it not being difficult to determine what works and what doesn't, how does that explain people coming up with things you think won't work? I mean&#8230; it's easy to determine, yeah?

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying it does or doesn't work&#8230; but I am saying that it might very simply not be designed to handle what you think it is&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Wing Chun wasn't designed to fight from that range, and that's painfully obvious.



 Well&#8230; yeah. And they've expanded to give some coverage to it&#8230; that's kinda the point of adding it, isn't it?



Hanzou said:


> At this point it's best to let Danny pop back in and clarify what he meant.



Agreed&#8230; and, well, he did&#8230; anything to add?



Hanzou said:


> The fact that it's called "anti-grappling" implies that it was designed to fight against skilled grapplers, and was a cash grab to capitalize on Bjj and MMA's explosion in popularity.



No, it doesn't. It implies that it's designed to address the wider understanding of grappling, ranging anywhere from skilled specialists to MMA fans who've watched too much, and think of themselves as being in the cage&#8230; and I'd suggest that they're aiming more towards the former, being the far more likely opponents for a street defence approach.

Again, you're expecting it to deal with something that it likely isn't meant to.



Hanzou said:


> And I have yet to see anything out of anti-grappling that looks marginally effective.



Against what? That's the question...



Hanzou said:


> When someone creates an ineffective combat system out of thin air, we tend to call it fraudulent around these parts. Why? Because it doesn't do what it was marketed to do.



Yeah&#8230; in these parts, and especially on a board who have quite stringent non-fraudbusting rules, we tend to use words the way they're defined&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Considering that anti-grappling popped up right when Bjj gained popularity, it's pretty hard to not recognize the purpose behind its creation. I mean wrestling has been around for centuries, no one in WC or WT created "anti-grappling" back then to counter that form of grappling.



The purpose behind it's creation is a wider awareness in the world&#8230; it had entered the zeitgeist&#8230; not specifically to deal with that one, single art. 



drop bear said:


> Anyway here are 57 guard passes that work. Pick one.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6OXHhvKaSA



Er&#8230; no.

I'll elaborate. As K-man mentioned, these are really pretty much all great for a sporting application&#8230; but none of them, or rather, incredibly few of them (none leapt out, at least) are really what I'd teach at all. This is where context really needs to be understood&#8230; the thing with a sporting system is that it enables, in fact encourages, a higher level of sophistication of attacks, counters, counter-counters, and so on&#8230; but the majority are really only needed, or even feasible, in that sporting context. The amount of time needed, the amount of focus on the single opponent, the usage of particular clothing and grips, the lack of certain attacks (strikes, weapons etc) and all take the technical approach in one particular direction&#8230; but that direction isn't the best for other contexts and needs. Frankly, I really only teach two primary escapes from guard&#8230; one where you push their legs back, and move up to mount in order to then finish or disengage, and one where you sweep the leg over the top to escape to the side. That's it. We don't need anything more sophisticated than that&#8230; and I need to be able to give them a simplified, gross-motor, streamlined version&#8230; a lot of the finer points of a BJJ way of doing such an escape are really not that important for us. Why? Because fighting ain't fighting, and context is king.



Hanzou said:


> Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.



Of course, you do have a claim that they can stop a street knife assault&#8230; which, by your definition (on my estimation of every knife defence I've seen from any BJJ faction) would be a "fraudulent" claim&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Anti-grapplers claim that they can defeat skilled grapplers with their abilities. That's the difference.



Really? Where do they say that they're claiming to be able to defeat "skilled grapplers"? Or do they just say "grappling attacks"? There's a difference&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> If I created a system called anti-knife fighting, it would be safe to assume that my system handles all forms of knife-fighting. That would include those highly skilled with the blade.



No, it wouldn't. The only thing it would be safe to assume is that you feel that it is an answer to the concept of knife fighting, depending on what that meant to you. One more time, your expectations aren't the reality.



Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I haven't checked then out (if we're talking about them same thing)?
> 
> I'd put more stock in those knife defenses than that anti-grappling nonsense any day of the week.



Well, good luck to you then&#8230; 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJer who has also done some knife training, I would not.
> 
> They might work, if you were desparate and lucky, against an unskilled attacker. That's about the same as I would say for the "anti-grappling" that has you so riled up.



Yep&#8230; of course, making the mistake that thinking your "anti-grappling" is good when it isn't, and finding out in the real world, and making the same mistake about knife defence, carry rather different levels of risk to them&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I put more stock into it because I understand limb and joint manipulation via my Bjj training, and we treat it as an extension of the arm. That's the basis of the knife training I've done in Bjj.
> 
> Of course, we've always made it clear that you're probably going to get cut or stabbed in that situation, and you should only attempt it if you're out of options. That's a bit different than  anti-grappling's claims.



Er&#8230; what claims exactly are you referring to? The article is pretty clear on the fact that it's not about sports, it's not about learning to handle a sports grappling specialist&#8230; in fact, it says: "So instead of implementing elements of a sport like jujitsu or judo to fill the gap, Grand Master Kernspecht, together with his senior students, some of them also former wrestlers, developed the foundation for the WingTsun anti-grappling and ground fighting based on the WingTsun principles and on the requirements of a self defence system versus a sport."

And, as far as your comments on why you're going to put more stock in your BJJ knife defence training&#8230; again, frankly, good luck with that&#8230; you're missing at least half, if not more of the equation&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Again, you treat it as an extension of the arm, and you apply the same principles as unarmed fighting. That's pretty much every martial art vs a knife; The details change, but the fundamentals don't. You control the arm, you control the knife.



Ha! Ah, that was funny&#8230; thanks for that&#8230; 

Again, you're missing at least half of the equation&#8230; most likely a lot more than that, honestly&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> It really isn't the same as attempting to apply old fundamentals and new details against grappling. Grappling is far too complex for that.



No, it isn't. I highly recommend you pull your head in on the "superiority of grappling"&#8230; all sporting arts have a higher level of sophistication&#8230; and I gotta say, "grappling" (I really hate the mis-use of the term, by the way&#8230 isn't really any more complex than a range of other things I could demonstrate to you&#8230; in fact, it can be downright pedestrian by comparison.



Hanzou said:


> You may notice this when new people enter your Bjj gym for the first time and roll against a seasoned student. The newbie is like on an alien planet not know what to do, while the Bjj exponent uses him as a grappling dummy.
> 
> Example;



Er&#8230; yeah&#8230; kind of a reductive argument there&#8230; you put anyone in a new class and they're going to be like a fish out of water&#8230; you turn up at my Iai classes for a first go, and you'll feel uncoordinated, you'll "stab" your own hand a number of times, your grip will be horrible, you won't be able to get the movement or footwork&#8230; and all of that is to be expected. It really has absolutely nothing to to with grappling or not, you realise&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> We *know* how to stop a knifer; you control the arm holding the knife. Even the guy who was getting knifed up in that video got control of the knifer's hand a few times;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah&#8230; I really hope you never have to deal with a knife attack&#8230; there's a lot of presumption here that will give you a real false confidence&#8230; which, ironically, is what you're thinking the issue with the "anti-grappling" idea is&#8230; but your risk level is so much higher&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> In short, anti-grappling was created to stop me, not you.



HA! 

No, it wasn't.



Hanzou said:


> Again, when the fundamentals are sound, the only thing left is the details. I've controlled the limbs of people a lot larger and stronger than myself while they were trying to cave my face in. I don't know why you believe a knife suddenly alters the fundamentals to the point where I can't control a kid's arm. That's nonsense.



And, bluntly, that shows just how little you understand what a knife does to an encounter&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> As for practicing against unscripted attacks every time I train; That's what we do when we roll. And yeah, that takes place every time I train.



Against what, though&#8230;?



Hanzou said:


> I didn't say you could stop a knifer every time, I said you know what you need to do to stop them. You actually being able to accomplish that goal is a different thing entirely.



Actually, no, you don't know what you need to stop them. You have an idea, a small piece of the puzzle (an important one, but not the full story by any stretch of the imagination).



Hanzou said:


> Agreed. Which is fortunate that our knife training is merely an extension of our existing training, not something else entirely.



Same with Wing Chun "Anti-Grappling", if you actually bothered to check&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I think Kman is looking for guard passes that include groin punches and hair pulls.
> 
> Nevermind the guard passes that actually work....



I don't think you have the first clue what K-man is looking for.



drop bear said:


> I have tried that lock combination against guys without knives just restraining them. And yeah? Sort of sometimes made it work.
> 
> By the way real sharps attack.
> French national quizzed over security guard stabbing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
> ...



Er&#8230; what exactly does that small article add to anything here?



Hanzou said:


> Actually I'm not.



Actually, you are.



Hanzou said:


> There's little need for me to learn how to become an expert knife fighter, because the chances of me encountering an expert knife fighter in an altercation is slim to nonexistent.



But the chances of you encountering a skilled, experienced knife fighter, or at least, knife assaulter, are far greater than you, or anyone, coming up against a skilled BJJ black belt in anything outside of competition.

Do you know what would qualify as an "expert knife fighter", just out of interest? It might not be what you expect&#8230; and more common than you think&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I'm far more likely to get into an altercation with someone larger than myself. That person larger than myself is likely to have played football or wrestled in high school or even college. Heck, maybe even took some MMA or Bjj. Those chances exceed the chances that I'm going to run into Crocodile Dundee and a 10" knife in an alleyway.



The guys with the 10 inch knife aren't the ones to worry about&#8230; if that's your image of a knife attacker, you really don't have much of an idea of this subject&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Also I wouldn't call the Gracie self-defense system "half mashed". The system has the history to back up a lot of its claims.



Really? History in what? What's their history against someone like skilled, experienced FMA practitioners&#8230;? After all, you're thinking that anti-grappling has to deal with the "best" out there&#8230;  



Hanzou said:


> Unlike the creators of anti-grappling&#8230;.



Are you saying that the creators didn't have any experience, or history, in their own system? Or that their own system doesn't (Wing Chun) doesn't have history? Or that it doesn't have the specific, exact history you think it should have?



drop bear said:


> By the way some of the kravers I spoke to said the guy was not legitimate.
> 
> So I googled mont aizik fraud.
> Moni Aizik: A Study in Martial Deceit - Part 2 | Black Belt Forums
> ...



Yeah&#8230; we know&#8230; and already told you.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I put more stock into it because I understand limb and joint manipulation via my Bjj training, and we treat it as an extension of the arm. That's the basis of the knife training I've done in Bjj.



You can treat a knife as an extension of the arm as long as you treat it as a cutty, stabby, slashy extension. Having a knife in the hand changes the dynamic (and the urgency) considerably For example getting grazed by a punch is much different than getting grazed by a knife.


----------

