# who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you.



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

Well punch them effectively anyway.

The issue you have is that any strike relies on using your body weight which is why you practice stances and junk.

If you are on your back most of the ability to generate force is gone. Where the guy on top can use his body and use gravity.

So the next step is to poke in eye or bite or something. But you still face the same issue. They can eyegouge better bite better and strike better in general.

And striking is a natural defence to pain. So say you outright blind a guy. There is no reason for him to get off you. He can still win from that position.  Can still hit you and will probably choose to do that rather than roll off and let you kick him to death.

Just sayin.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

Apparently ballen actually thinks that.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 21, 2015)

There are ways to increase the effectiveness of strikes from a disadvantaged position, such as choosing appropriate targets, using smaller surface area (e.g. middle knuckle strike instead of punch). What you can do also depends on what position you are in.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So the next step is to poke in eye or bite or something. But you still face the same issue.


So why is that always the next step?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> There are ways to increase the effectiveness of strikes from a disadvantaged position, such as choosing appropriate targets, using smaller surface area (e.g. middle knuckle strike instead of punch). What you can do also depends on what position you are in.



Noog





RTKDCMB said:


> So why is that always the next step?



Because out right punching doesn't work and people try to validate the effectiveness of that bottom punch by converting it to a noogie or something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 21, 2015)

Just to clarify, when you say "someone on top of you", are we talking about mount?

Striking from the bottom of mount is a very bad idea that will generally result in getting hurt badly.

There _are_ some good ways to strike effectively from bottom of _guard_, although it's not generally my first go-to move.

Striking from bottom of side mount or knee ride is generally not effective, but there are a couple of specific strikes you can sometimes land effectively if the person on top screws up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

This guy agrees with me


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

Him too but its not a punch its a kick


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If you are on your back most of the ability to generate force is gone. .



Wrong


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well punch them effectively anyway.
> 
> The issue you have is that any strike relies on using your body weight which is why you practice stances and junk.
> 
> ...



Winning (sport)...or survival (life and death).....they ain't the same...just sayin


----------



## Danny T (Jun 21, 2015)

Had one of my guys win by KO when mounted by a rt/left combo. Have seen a few TKO's from bottom as well.
Not something that happens much but it does happen. So, Yes punches can be effective against someone on top. There are other actions that have much higher percentage of effectiveness but punches can be as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Had one of my guys win by KO when mounted by a rt/left combo. Have seen a few TKO's from bottom as well.
> Not something that happens much but it does happen. So, Yes punches can be effective against someone on top. There are other actions that have much higher percentage of effectiveness but punches can be as well.




I've seen good punching to the guy on top, there's actually little reason why you can't hit hard especially if you are a heavy hitter anyway. Practice punches from your back, it's good exercise anyway and you never know when you could use them, always room for more techniques in your armoury.
I do think ridiculing someone because they think punches from the back are viable  and you don't agree is a bit low...especially when you are wrong. Who said punching is reliant on body weight anyway? Technique, technique, technique every time. I'm seen big guys who can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag and light weight who will break your jaw if they connect.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Winning (sport)...or survival (life and death).....they ain't the same...just sayin



The mechanics don't change. You just die rather than loose.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to clarify, when you say "someone on top of you", are we talking about mount?
> 
> Striking from the bottom of mount is a very bad idea that will generally result in getting hurt badly.
> 
> ...



What circumstances?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I've seen good punching to the guy on top, there's actually little reason why you can't hit hard especially if you are a heavy hitter anyway. Practice punches from your back, it's good exercise anyway and you never know when you could use them, always room for more techniques in your armoury.
> I do think ridiculing someone because they think punches from the back are viable  and you don't agree is a bit low...especially when you are wrong. Who said punching is reliant on body weight anyway? Technique, technique, technique every time. I'm seen big guys who can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag and light weight who will break your jaw if they connect.



Good technique relies on utilizing your body weight. Which you don't have on your back with someone sitting on you.

Do you think this is comon that a guy gets koed from under mount?

Danny t has mentioned the only one I have ever heard of.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> This guy agrees with me



Did that have any effect?


----------



## Chrisoro (Jun 21, 2015)

Yes, as can bee seen in this video of the whole fight. While not exactly the most effective thing to do from from under in mount, it is definately possible. If nothing else, at least it proves once again that absolutes is uncommon in the real world. And yes, despite the name of the video, it IS from bottom mount, not guard. Just watch the video, and see for yourself.





This one is also interesting, although it's a little bit more unclear what actually happened. The top fighter might just have been gassing and fainting at the same time he was hit by the bottom fighter:






And while trying to do effective punching from bottom mount isn't exactly recommended, or very common, effective striking from bottom guard isn't uncommon. Check out Arlovski rocking De Pano for example. And Joachim Hansen's run in Pride and Dream definitely proved that effective punches from bottom guard is not just possible but can be very effective.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Good technique relies on utilizing your body weight. Which you don't have on your back with someone sitting on you.
> 
> Do you think this is comon that a guy gets koed from under mount?
> 
> Danny t has mentioned the only one I have ever heard of.




So, unless something you say works it doesn't.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 21, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Yes, as can bee seen in this video of the whole fight. While not exactly the most effective thing to do from from under in mount, it is definately possible. If nothing else, at least it proves once again that absolutes is uncommon in the real world. And yes, despite the name of the video, it IS from bottom mount, not guard. Just watch the video, and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting. I would say those represent a one in a thousand fluke shot, but it does go to show that anything can happen in a fight, even if it's not particularly likely. I agree that the second fight is unclear - those strikes from the bottom didn't look that effective - maybe the top fighter just cut too much weight and fainted from dehydration or something. However in the first fight you can see how the punch landed just right. Crazy outcome! Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Did that have any effect?


He was knocked out.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

So the answer to your question is a lot of people think you can punch someone on top of you....just saying


----------



## Danny T (Jun 21, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Very interesting. I would say those represent a one in a thousand fluke shot, but it does go to show that anything can happen in a fight, even if it's not particularly likely. I agree that the second fight is unclear - those strikes from the bottom didn't look that effective - maybe the top fighter just cut too much weight and fainted from dehydration or something. However in the first fight you can see how the punch landed just right. Crazy outcome! Thanks for sharing that.


In the second fight the top fighter took several hammer fist to the side of the jaw and had his mouth guard knocked out. At 3:25 in the video he eats a backhand hammer fist to the left side of his jaw and was KOed.

I agree it is rare that one wins from striking when on bottom but... it does happen. 
I've witnessed more where the fight wasn't stopped but the striking from bottom was effective enough that the top fighter was unable to continue the attack and the bottom fighter was then able to better their position.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 21, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> This guy agrees with me



You think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?

To answer Drop Bear's question, no you can't. That doesn't mean that you can't knock someone out if you get a lucky punch in, but nine times out of ten, if your try punching for someone's head when they're sitting on top of you, you're going to get your head caved in.

The Guard is a different story however.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?


Well since your the prince of if it's in YouTube it happens there it proof it can be.  


> To answer Drop Bear's question, no you can't


Well except it did so....


> . That doesn't mean that you can't knock someone out if you get a lucky punch in, but nine times out of ten if your try punching for someone's head when they're sitting on top of you, you're going to get your head caved in.


Hmm so do you have any real evidence to back up this 90% head caving in figures or are you just talking our your butt


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Good technique relies on utilizing your body weight.


Agree! In MA, the

- top position is better than the bottom position.
- inside position is better than the outside position.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 21, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Well since your the prince of if it's in YouTube it happens there it proof it can be.



Yeah it can happen, just like you can get struck by lightning and hit by a bus in the same day.



> Well except it did so....



So it's a lucky punch.



> Hmm so do you have any real evidence to back up this 90% head caving in figures or are you just talking our your butt



Common sense would be the real evidence. Trying to punch your way out of a mount is typically a very bad idea. Why? Because you can't punch effectively from that position. A couple of flukes in the ring doesn't change that.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?


Where did you read and Who wrote they think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?



Hanzou said:


> To answer Drop Bear's question, no you can't. That doesn't mean that you can't knock someone out if you get a lucky punch in, but nine times out of ten, if your try punching for someone's head when they're sitting on top of you, you're going to get your head caved in.


Effective - producing a result that is wanted; - having an intended effect.
Striking from being mounted Is Not the most effective percent wise. This I agree. However, IF and When it works then at that moment it is effective.
Over hand punches miss more often than connect yet in mma they are thrown often. Why, because when they do land they are effective
When mounted are there other actions that, percentage wise is more effective? Yes. Train them.
And train striking from the bottom as well. Some time that may be the only action you can do. It is a Hail Mary move but even the professional football teams all have and use Hail Mary plays.

Had he asked about 'efficient' striking; (capable of producing a desired result without wasting materials, time, or energy), that would be different.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 21, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah it can happen, just like you can get struck by lightning and hit by a bus in the same day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol so YouTube proof only counts when it fits your opinion on fighting.  Got it.  
The question was asked and the answer is a lot of people can and have punched their way out when someone was on top.  Sorry it doesn't fit your preconceived notions 

Ps common sense would show if you were correct 90% of fights would end with someone getting there face smashed in when your opponent gets on top.  Well that's not true so your 90% was well pull out your but


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Where did you read and Who wrote they think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?



It was the example provided by Ballen in response to the thread title.



> Effective - producing a result that is wanted; - having an intended effect.
> Striking from being mounted Is Not the most effective percent wise. This I agree. However, IF and When it works then at that moment it is effective.



If someone asked you if punching from the bottom was an effective counter to someone sitting on top of them, would you honestly tell them yes, or would you tell them that there are superior options out there?

The reason they call it a "Hail Mary" is because its a desperation move. Instead of going for a desperation move, learn how get out of that position and get into a better one.

There's plenty of arts out there that can show you how. Punching should be the last thing you consider in that situation along with biting and nut grabbing.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Lol so YouTube proof only counts when it fits your opinion on fighting.  Got it.
> The question was asked and the answer is a lot of people can and have punched their way out when someone was on top.



Which simply means that its possible. It doesn't mean that its effective.



> Ps common sense would show if you were correct 90% of fights would end with someone getting there face smashed in when your opponent gets on top.  Well that's not true so your 90% was well pull out your but



Well, every fight I've seen in person or otherwise where someone is on top of them, someone gets their face smashed, and its rarely the guy on top. Again, there's a difference between what's *possible*, and what's *effective*.

If I throw a pencil at someone's face from 30 feet away, its *possible* that it can stab them in the eye and blind them. That doesn't mean that throwing pencils at people is an effective form of self defense, or an effective form of blinding people.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well, every fight I've seen in person or otherwise



How many fights have you seen? Over more than sixteen years I have seen thousands of MMA fights live, probably nearly as many on video and television plus countless brawls and people trying to avoid arrest, I've seen every type of strike going, efficient as well as pretty pointless and I have seen punching from the bottom  in MMA fights which has been effective. Effective doesn't have to be 'getting the face smashed' effective can be discouraging the guy on top from making moves he would otherwise try, effective can be making him change his position, effective can be giving you that moment to get him off, in other word effective can be a lot of things. Of course if you are any good at BJJ you would know that, if you want devastating then no punching from the bottom isn't so good.




Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a simple test. Assume you are a guy, when you try to make love to your love one, you can try the:
> 
> 1. top position, or
> 2. bottom position.
> ...




As for this...really? have you no idea how that position is supposed to work and do you really have to be that crude?


----------



## Argus (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Which simply means that its possible. It doesn't mean that its effective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everything happens for a reason. If you connected with a strike from the bottom, or any other position, there is a good reason as to why you were able to do so. The opening was there, you took it, and it was a valid action. If you don't connect, and suffer the consequences, the opening wasn't there, and you were just trying to make something work where it doesn't. There's not much luck or chance involved, as long as you aren't blindly swinging. Just because something is a bad idea much of the time doesn't mean it's a bad idea all of the time. Skill is recognizing the situation for what it is, and capitalizing on whatever presents itself the moment it becomes available.

P.S. I'm pretty sure I can think of some legitimate self defense applications for throwing a pencil at someone's face. Not sure why you would be doing that at 30 feet, as someone that far away doesn't really constitute a threat that you would need to engage, but in any case, it would make for a decent distraction at closer distances. I'm pretty sure that if I throw a pencil at your face, you will react to it. Granted, a larger, more visible object would be ideal, but in any case, a pencil coming at your face, should you notice it, is likely to get some response. That's something I can potentially capitalize on; disrupting the situation and putting myself in a better position by getting out of the way, accessing a weapon, or entering to strike or take control as your attention is split, is it not? Of course, that pencil may have served me better as a stabbing implement, but then maybe it would not have; perhaps the situation doesn't call for lethal force, or perhaps it does and I have a much more useful weapon that I can access. In any case, if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. And there's a reason behind either outcome. As long as I'm not going around thinking that I can protect myself by relying solely on my pencil-throwing skills to save me, I should be OK


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> You think swinging wildly with your eyes closed is effective punching?


Something I have seen countless MMA fighters do on countless occasions, a common response to getting punched from the top is to flail their arms around and hope for the best whilst trying to grab.an arm.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Something I have seen countless MMA fighters do on countless occasions, a common response to getting punched from the top is to flail their arms around and hope for the best whilst trying to grab.an arm.




I've seen fighters do that too, I've also seen them punch upwards, use 'telephone' blocks, cover their faces, try to turn over, been punched, basically the whole gamut of things you can do when being punched by the person 'sat' on you.
One thing to remember all fighters are not equal, what a good fighter can do doesn't mean a mediocre one can. when discussing something like 'can you punch upwards' the answer has to be yes you can, a good fighter can make it work if the opportunity arises, a not so good fighter either won't see the chance or can't make it work, so like many other things the answer is going to be that it depends on the fighters, there is no absolute yes it works totally or no it never works.


----------



## Buka (Jun 22, 2015)

As little kids roughhouse, the mount position appears to be a natural position to dominate, intimidate or hurt. It appears the natural reaction from the bottom is to shove them off or strike at the face. As we age, maybe it would depend on how we're taught to deal with it?

Punching to the face from bottom ain't easy. Shrimping ain't easy, either. Nor is umpa at times. Can't say I known anything easy in a fight. Bleeding, maybe.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Which simply means that its possible. It doesn't mean that its effective.


Except it was effective so..........


> Well, every fight I've seen in person or otherwise where someone is on top of them, someone gets their face smashed, and its rarely the guy on top. Again, there's a difference between what's *possible*, and what's *effective*.


And in this case striking from the bottom is both possible and effective.  Is it the most effective technique to use no but can it work absolutely 



> If I throw a pencil at someone's face from 30 feet away, its *possible* that it can stab them in the eye and blind them. That doesn't mean that throwing pencils at people is an effective form of self defense, or an effective form of blinding people.


And throwing pencils from 30 feet is no comparison to striking from the bottom.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> It was the example provided by Ballen in response to the thread title.



A still picture of a straight punch up the center is what you refer to as "swinging wildly with your eyes closed"?



Hanzou said:


> If someone asked you if punching from the bottom was an effective counter to someone sitting on top of them, would you honestly tell them yes, or would you tell them that there are superior options out there?


I have all ready stated this, twice.



Hanzou said:


> The reason they call it a "Hail Mary" is because its a desperation move. Instead of going for a desperation move, learn how get out of that position and get into a better one.
> 
> There's plenty of arts out there that can show you how.


And when you are in a situation where the person on bottom has the training but is unable to???
Don't attempt anything else. For certain don't attempt a move out of desperation.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The reason they call it a "Hail Mary" is because its a desperation move. Instead of going for a desperation move,.


A Hail Mary is far from a desperation move.  Teams practice it because it works.  It is very effective when your opponent isnt ready.  For example you believe it could NEVER work so you wouldnt be expecting it, wont train to defend it, and wont be ready for it then all of a sudden  bam your lights get turned off


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

Danny T said:


> A still picture of a straight punch up the center is what you refer to as "swinging wildly with your eyes closed"?



Watch the vid. That's exactly what he was doing when he got the knock out punch.



> And when you are in a situation where the person on bottom has the training but is unable to???
> Don't attempt anything else. For certain don't attempt a move out of desperation.



I never said don't attempt anything else. I said don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Why should you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.


Except when they are effective right?


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Except when they are effective right?



Just like throwing a pencil at a bad guy from 30 ft away.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Just like throwing a pencil at a bad guy from 30 ft away.


Nope you can't have have it both ways.  You can't troll other style sections of this forum with demands of video evidence things work.  Then you get it here and pretend it doesn't work and it was a fluke.  Your hypocrisy is glowing bright.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 22, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope you can't have have it both ways.  You can't troll other style sections of this forum with demands of video evidence things work.  Then you get it here and pretend it doesn't work and it was a fluke.  Your hypocrisy is glowing bright.



I didn't say it didn't work or that it wasn't possible. I said that it isn't effective. There's a difference.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I didn't say it didn't work or that it wasn't possible. I said that it isn't effective. There's a difference.


tell that to the dude who got K.O. he would disagree with you


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The mechanics don't change. You just die rather than loose.



Once again...wrong...  so what exactly are you basing all this on...your vast background spent training for years in multiple styles.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Just like throwing a pencil at a bad guy from 30 ft away.



Interesting statement...ever see what the Chinese use to do and some still with throwing a chopstick.... heck even I've done it....



Hanzou said:


> I said don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.



Who said it would be desperation and why is the head the only target?


----------



## Danny T (Jun 22, 2015)

The question was "who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you" and then the caveat "Well punch them effectively anyway" was added.
The answer for Hanzou is no. 
For some of us it is yes.
The thing is the question wasn't who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you 'efficiently'.
Huge Difference.
With someone on top there are other go to moves or actions that should be effective and more efficient. However, there are those times when they are not. When that happens punching can be effective 'if' the punch contacts properly although punching at the particular time may not be very efficient.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2015)

Punching from bottom doesn't have to be to the head, you can pull your opponent in and punch to ribs which is hugely distracting. You can elbow to your opponents thighs. Both techniques taught by Bas Rutten btw.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jun 22, 2015)

You can do a lot by striking even while mounted. 
A punch is not just a punch; it can wedge out or deflect the guy who is on top trying to hit YOU. Also by trying to "pull something" back with your punch it can become a grab to destabalize them and reverse the mount (though gloves make the wrist a harder spot to get grip on). A successful grab can get them closer and outside of that angle / range where they can hit you a lot easier than you can hit them.
Shrimping, bridging, and all those other bjj counters that I don't know must be good too..... but I fail to see how being on your back automatically makes a punch ineffective. A vertical punch pistons the fist forward using the elbow. You already have the ground beneath you that you are pushing against.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Once again...wrong...  so what exactly are you basing all this on...your vast background spent training for years in multiple styles.



My knowledge of what the street is. 

Which just seems to be the person who can make up the best fiction to be honest.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Punching from bottom doesn't have to be to the head, you can pull your opponent in and punch to ribs which is hugely distracting. You can elbow to your opponents thighs. Both techniques taught by Bas Rutten btw.



Yeah but not exactly very popular any more. Even that heel kicking in guard does not seem to do much.

How are you dealing with downward elbows while this is going on? I mean you start a boxing match down there you would not want to eat too many shots back.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Yes, as can bee seen in this video of the whole fight. While not exactly the most effective thing to do from from under in mount, it is definately possible. If nothing else, at least it proves once again that absolutes is uncommon in the real world. And yes, despite the name of the video, it IS from bottom mount, not guard. Just watch the video, and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am impressed you found that. Be interesting to see why that works. I would suggest to spazzy on top. But it does leave an opening for the guy to strike from the bottom.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but not exactly very popular any more. Even that heel kicking in guard does not seem to do much.
> 
> How are you dealing with downward elbows while this is going on? I mean you start a boxing match down there you would not want to eat too many shots back.




Are you telling us you don't know how to defend from the bottom?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

Two more that won from punches and strikes from the bottom. Andrei Arvoloski v Marcio Cruz and Mamed Khalidov v Jorge Santiago. Both fights on YT.


----------



## Transk53 (Jun 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I am impressed you found that. Be interesting to see why that works. I would suggest to* spazzy* on top. But it does leave an opening for the guy to strike from the bottom.



Do you mean have a spaz attack and start slapping like a bird?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 23, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> defend from the bottom


I have met a few people who talk from there.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I am impressed you found that. Be interesting to see why that works. I would suggest to spazzy on top. But it does leave an opening for the guy to strike from the bottom.




'Spazzy'...not very nice word to use, it's short for spastic, which used to be what people with cerebral palsy and other conditions used to be called. Suggesting something that mimics disabled people is crude and really not respectful.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> My knowledge of what the street is.
> 
> Which just seems to be the person who can make up the best fiction to be honest.



unimpressed...... I have that too by the way, along with 40 years martial arts training....what else you got


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 23, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I said don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why should you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.



I don't think "effective" is the right word here. In those (very rare) occasions where it worked (as seen in the videos above), then it was undeniably effective. I would say that the tactic is not "efficient" or "high-percentage" or "likely to succeed". Those are probably better terms to use.



ballen0351 said:


> A Hail Mary is far from a desperation move.  Teams practice it because it works.  It is very effective when your opponent isnt ready.  *For example you believe it could NEVER work so you wouldnt be expecting it, wont train to defend it, and wont be ready for it then all of a sudden  bam your lights get turned off*



I think you hit on a key point here. Striking from the bottom very, very rarely succeeds. One reason it did succeed in the videos shown above is that the fighter on top was making absolutely no effort to defend against the strikes from the bottom. The fighters training and experience had taught them that they had nothing to fear from the person on bottom, and so they pretty much ignored all the strikes coming up. Most of the time, fighters can get away with that because the top person has a huge mechanical advantage. However, _most_ of the time is not _all_ of the time. If the top fighters had recognized that, they could have protected themselves a bit better and won the fight.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 23, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Two more that won from punches and strikes from the bottom. Andrei Arvoloski v Marcio Cruz and Mamed Khalidov v Jorge Santiago. Both fights on YT.


I can't find the Arlovski vs Cruz fight. Do you have a link?

I watched the end of the Khalidov vs Santiago fight. Didn't see any striking from the bottom. was there some particular point during the fight you were thinking of?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Do you mean have a spaz attack and start slapping like a bird?



striking up high and not consolidating the mount. There is a tendency to do it. Normally the result is being swept.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can't find the Arlovski vs Cruz fight. Do you have a link?
> 
> I watched the end of the Khalidov vs Santiago fight. Didn't see any striking from the bottom. was there some particular point during the fight you were thinking of?



Arlovski fight is from Dec30th 2006 and the Khalidov fight was ended with a hammerfist from underneath, that's from Sep 2009.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 23, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Arlovski fight is from Dec30th 2006 and the Khalidov fight was ended with a hammerfist from underneath, that's from Sep 2009.


Aha!  I was looking at the Khalidov vs Santiago fight from 2010 originally. Didn't realize they fought twice.

Just watched both fights. Neither one involved punching from bottom of mount. Khalidov was striking from bottom of open guard. Arlovski was punching from a mutually entwined leg lock position (sort of like 50/50 guard, but not quite.) Arlovski wasn't even underneath his opponent.

No one is questioning that striking from bottom of _guard_ can be effective. Striking from bottom of _mount_ is a whole different story. The two videos linked upthread are the only examples I've ever seen where someone was successful with that tactic.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Aha!  I was looking at the Khalidov vs Santiago fight from 2010 originally. Didn't realize they fought twice.
> 
> Just watched both fights. Neither one involved punching from bottom of mount. Khalidov was striking from bottom of open guard. Arlovski was punching from a mutually entwined leg lock position (sort of like 50/50 guard, but not quite.) Arlovski wasn't even underneath his opponent.
> 
> No one is questioning that striking from bottom of _guard_ can be effective. Striking from bottom of _mount_ is a whole different story. The two videos linked upthread are the only examples I've ever seen where someone was successful with that tactic.




???  the question the OP asked involves someone on top of you, that's not necessarily actually 'mount' you can also have someone on top of you in side control and when they are in your guard, they are on top you are on the bottom.  Are we are going to be so precise as to specify only in mount, it's not as if the OP isn't silly enough as it is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 23, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> ???  the question the OP asked involves someone on top of you, that's not necessarily actually 'mount' you can also have someone on top of you in side control and when they are in your guard, they are on top you are on the bottom.  Are we are going to be so precise as to specify only in mount, it's not as if the OP isn't silly enough as it is.


They are going to keep narrowing the conversation until they are right.  The original question was answered.  Yes you can strike effectively from the bottom.  Now it's well not from the guard.  When that's proven wrong it will be further narrowed to we'll not blindfolded and handcuffed.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 23, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> ???  the question the OP asked involves someone on top of you, that's not necessarily actually 'mount' you can also have someone on top of you in side control and when they are in your guard, they are on top you are on the bottom.  Are we are going to be so precise as to specify only in mount, it's not as if the OP isn't silly enough as it is.


There's a  reason my very first comment in the thread asked for clarification on what drop bear meant with the original question and provided different answers based on which position we are talking about. There is a *huge* difference between striking from bottom of guard and striking from bottom of mount. It's not a trivial distinction and we aren't going to have meaningful conversation if we don't all understand which topic we are discussing.

Based on drop bear's follow up comments, I'm assuming he meant bottom of mount, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm quite certain Hanzou was discussing the mount.

Personally, I'm glad the question was asked because it lead to Chrisoro posting the videos he did. I've watched probably a thousand MMA fights and it's the first time I've seen results like that. It's always cool seeing someone pull something off something crazy like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's a  reason my very first comment in the thread asked for clarification on what drop bear meant with the original question and provided different answers based on which position we are talking about. There is a *huge* difference between striking from bottom of guard and striking from bottom of mount. It's not a trivial distinction and we aren't going to have meaningful conversation if we don't all understand which topic we are discussing.
> 
> Based on drop bear's follow up comments, I'm assuming he meant bottom of mount, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm quite certain Hanzou was discussing the mount.
> 
> Personally, I'm glad the question was asked because it lead to Chrisoro posting the videos he did. I've watched probably a thousand MMA fights and it's the first time I've seen results like that. It's always cool seeing someone pull something off something crazy like that.



I have Hanzou on ignore so I don't know what he says. I find his comments unhelpful at best, dismissive at worse.
I will leave this conversation now as the 'rules' keep changing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's always cool seeing someone pull something off something crazy like that.


Its hardly "crazy" and def not as mystical and far fetched as your trying to make it out to be.  But who am I to go against the BJJ gods. Around here it seems if its not grappling it wont work, is crazy, not effective, a low % technique,BLAH BLAH BLAH BJJ good strikes bad BLAH BLAH BLAH


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's a  reason my very first comment in the thread asked for clarification on what drop bear meant with the original question and provided different answers based on which position we are talking about. There is a *huge* difference between striking from bottom of guard and striking from bottom of mount. It's not a trivial distinction and we aren't going to have meaningful conversation if we don't all understand which topic we are discussing.
> 
> Based on drop bear's follow up comments, I'm assuming he meant bottom of mount, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm quite certain Hanzou was discussing the mount.
> 
> Personally, I'm glad the question was asked because it lead to Chrisoro posting the videos he did. I've watched probably a thousand MMA fights and it's the first time I've seen results like that. It's always cool seeing someone pull something off something crazy like that.



Yep, I was talking about the mount. As you said, the guard is a whole different ball game.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 23, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Its hardly "crazy" and def not as mystical and far fetched as your trying to make it out to be.  But who am I to go against the BJJ gods. Around here it seems if its not grappling it wont work, is crazy, not effective, a low % technique,BLAH BLAH BLAH BJJ good strikes bad BLAH BLAH BLAH


I don't believe that _"grappling good, striking bad, BJJ's best_" is an accurate description of drop bear's commentary. I _know_ it's not reflective of anything I've ever said or even implied.

As far as getting a knockout from the bottom of mount - it may not be mystical, but it sure is unusual. I've seen hundreds of fights end up in the mount. A large percentage of them have been ended by strikes from the fighter on top. Until Chrisoro posted those two videos, I had never seen the fighter on the bottom of mount have any luck at all with striking from that position.

In addition to the evidence from fights observed, I've spent hundreds of hours in both the top and bottom of mounts during training and sparring. Based on that, I can tell you that the fighter on top of mount has a *huge* mechanical advantage in striking over the fighter on the bottom. That's got nothing to do with "grappling is better than striking" or "BJJ is better than anything else." It's just the reality of that particular position.


----------



## Buka (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's a  reason my very first comment in the thread asked for clarification on what drop bear meant with the original question and provided different answers based on which position we are talking about. There is a *huge* difference between striking from bottom of guard and striking from bottom of mount. It's not a trivial distinction and we aren't going to have meaningful conversation if we don't all understand which topic we are discussing.
> 
> Based on drop bear's follow up comments, I'm assuming he meant bottom of mount, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm quite certain Hanzou was discussing the mount.
> 
> Personally, I'm glad the question was asked because it lead to Chrisoro posting the videos he did. I've watched probably a thousand MMA fights and it's the first time I've seen results like that. It's always cool seeing someone pull something off something crazy like that.



I agree wholeheartedly. Great points. The difference between mount, high mount, defending mount from a low spider, back mount, side control, top position in his guard, knee on belly, knee on neck, ground & pound or swarming top position with a really heavy opponent is pretty much the same differences as in a standing position with the opponent in a squared stance with hands down, hands in his pockets, hands up, a fence position, a left or right stance, a bouncing opponent, an attack with a straight strike, a wild swing, a fast rush, a pump fake, a swarm or with a weapon in his hand.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> ???  the question the OP asked involves someone on top of you, that's not necessarily actually 'mount' you can also have someone on top of you in side control and when they are in your guard, they are on top you are on the bottom.  Are we are going to be so precise as to specify only in mount, it's not as if the OP isn't silly enough as it is.



There is a difference in a mma sense.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I have Hanzou on ignore so I don't know what he says. I find his comments unhelpful at best, dismissive at worse.
> I will leave this conversation now as the 'rules' keep changing.


Depends if we are talking about a topic or trying to score semantic points. Up kicking from guard would be high percentage.  But that is not really what I was talking about.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> They are going to keep narrowing the conversation until they are right.  The original question was answered.  Yes you can strike effectively from the bottom.  Now it's well not from the guard.  When that's proven wrong it will be further narrowed to we'll not blindfolded and handcuffed.



So what circumstances do you advocate striking from the bottom. Do you train this?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So what circumstances do you advocate striking from the bottom.


What circumstances?  Anytime I find myself in the ground with someone on top of me.  


> Do you train this?


Yes


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't believe that _"grappling good, striking bad, BJJ's best_" is an accurate description of drop bear's commentary. I _know_ it's not reflective of anything I've ever said or even implied.


Ummm yeah sure keep telling yourself that


> As far as getting a knockout from the bottom of mount - it may not be mystical, but it sure is unusual. I've seen hundreds of fights end up in the mount. A large percentage of them have been ended by strikes from the fighter on top. Until Chrisoro posted those two videos, I had never seen the fighter on the bottom of mount have any luck at all with striking from that position.
> 
> In addition to the evidence from fights observed, I've spent hundreds of hours in both the top and bottom of mounts during training and sparring. Based on that, I can tell you that the fighter on top of mount has a *huge* mechanical advantage in striking over the fighter on the bottom. That's got nothing to do with "grappling is better than striking" or "BJJ is better than anything else." It's just the reality of that particular position.


Well considering being in top is a position of advantage and being on the bottom is not it's not a surprise most fights end with the top guy winning.  THAT wasn't the original question.  Again your trying to narrow the topic down until it fits your view.  The question was who thinks you can punch from the bottom.  Well many people do and it can work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Ummm yeah sure keep telling yourself that



I've been posting here for 10 years. I invite you to find a single comment from me during all that time indicating that grappling is inherently better than striking or that BJJ is better than other arts. I train in striking, grappling, and weapons arts and I'm an advocate for the view that any serious martial artist should do the same.



ballen0351 said:


> THAT wasn't the original question. Again your trying to narrow the topic down until it fits your view.



The original question was ambiguous and has different answers depending on how you interpret it. Way back on the first page of this thread I asked drop bear for clarification and provided different answers depending on his meaning. If we want to communicate with each other rather than just scoring points, it behooves us to make sure we're talking about the same thing.



ballen0351 said:


> Well considering being in top is a position of advantage and being on the bottom is not it's not a surprise most fights end with the top guy winning.



Okay, let me go into more depth:
I've seen hundreds of fights end up in the mount. A large percentage of them have been ended by strikes from the fighter on top. Until Chrisoro posted those two videos, I had never seen the fighter on the bottom of mount have any luck at all with striking from that position. Usually the fighter who tries striking from bottom of mount gets pounded out. I _have_ seen *lots* of fighters _escape_ the mount (not through striking - usually through bridging, elbow escape, or back door escape) and go on to end up winning the fight. Sometimes they even end up winning via strikes - once they're no longer on bottom of mount.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> What circumstances?  Anytime I find myself in the ground with someone on top of me.
> 
> Yes



How do you set it up though?

How do you prevent the guy on top striking you?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

If people think I don't want to knock a guy out from underneath mount they are wrong.

I would love to. I would let people get mount just so I could beat on them.

But it is the how that eludes me. And it has eluded some very competent fighters. So it has been done. Fine I can accept that. Now for those who train it. How did they do it?


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> What circumstances?  Anytime I find myself in the ground with someone on top of me.
> 
> Yes



I'd be very curious to know how exactly are you training from that position. Are you learning escapes, or are you just trying to punch and kick your way out of that position?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

There seems to be a couple discussions going on here.

One has to do with usefulness of striking when someone is on top of you and the other seems to be the usefulness striking when someone is on top of you in a proper BJJ Mount. And those are not the same thing. There are reasons, rather good ones, for striking when some one is on top of you and there are reasons rather bad ones as well,

And for the record. Trying to strike someone in the head, when they are in a mount, is likely not a good idea


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've been posting here for 10 years. I invite you to find a single comment from me during all that time indicating that grappling is inherently better than striking or that BJJ is better than other arts. I train in striking, grappling, and weapons arts and I'm an advocate for the view that any serious martial artist should do the same.


Awful defensive of it didn't apply to you then why are you so worried about it.  Your not only grappler here.  You are however at least in this thread very dismissive of striking almost calling it magical so.....


> The original question was ambiguous and has different answers depending on how you interpret it. Way back on the first page of this thread I asked drop bear for clarification and provided different answers depending on his meaning. If we want to communicate with each other rather than just scoring points, it behooves us to make sure we're talking about the same thing.


Striking from the bottom is pretty clear.  


> Okay, let me go into more depth:
> I've seen hundreds of fights end up in the mount. A large percentage of them have been ended by strikes from the fighter on top. Until Chrisoro posted those two videos, I had never seen the fighter on the bottom of mount have any luck at all with striking from that position. Usually the fighter who tries striking from bottom of mount gets pounded out. I _have_ seen *lots* of fighters _escape_ the mount (not through striking - usually through bridging, elbow escape, or back door escape) and go on to end up winning the fight. Sometimes they even end up winning via strikes - once they're no longer on bottom of mount.


So you have seen hundreds of fights and?????  Look you have your opinion I have mine.  Mine says striking is possible from the bottom.  Proof has been given.  It is what it is.  You don't think it's effective great don't use it don't try it don't worry about it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> How do you set it up though?
> 
> How do you prevent the guy on top striking you?


I train in lots of different positions.  I set it up in many different ways.  I train like I'm at work.  I'll bend down and simulate handcuffing and have someone run up behind me and attack me.  I train as if I was knocked on my back and someone gets on top,  I train talking to one person then getting attacked by a second person then the original person also attacks me.  

How do I prevent the guy on top from hitting me?  I can't always.  Sometimes I'm OK taking a few hits to set up a counter strike.  I'm not afraid of getting hit.  I've been hit plenty.  I also don't need to knock you out from the bottom I just need to unsettle you so I can get up.  You seem to think all I want to do is lay on my back and fight from there.  I don't and I don't think anyone does.  But I can use strikes to free myself to get up.  Or use strikes to free myself to draw a weapon or anything else I can think of to win.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I'd be very curious to know how exactly are you training from that position. Are you learning escapes, or are you just trying to punch and kick your way out of that position?


Yes


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> There seems to be a couple discussions going on here.
> 
> One has to do with usefulness of striking when someone is on top of you and the other seems to be the usefulness striking when someone is on top of you in a proper BJJ Mount. And those are not the same thing. There are reasons, rather good ones, for striking when some one is on top of you and there are reasons rather bad ones as well,
> 
> And for the record. Trying to strike someone in the head, when they are in a mount, is likely not a good idea



There is no "Bjj mount". There's simply the mount position, and it's the exact same position across the board. You see people with no training whatsoever achieving the mount position on someone, because it's probably the most dominant position in fighting.

Bjj only teaches you how to maintain it if you're on top, and how to escape from it if you're on bottom. If you're arguing that a "proper Bjj mount" is a grappler mount, well that's not exclusive to Bjj. Plenty of grappling styles teach mount stability these days.

What strikes do you feel would be effective from the bottom of a mount?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Awful defensive of it didn't apply to you then why are you so worried about it. Your not only grappler here.



Since your comment was in reply to a comment of mine, I thought you might have intended it to apply to me. If you didn't, then maybe you can clarify that. If you did, then please provide even an iota of evidence for your assertion.



ballen0351 said:


> You are however at least in this thread very dismissive of striking almost calling it magical so.....



Not at all. I stated that _from one very specific position_, striking is not generally a good idea. Along the same lines, I could say "if your opponent is standing 3 feet behind you, then trying to initiate a choke is not likely to be effective." Does that mean I'm dismissive of grappling now? I just believe there is a time and place for everything.



ballen0351 said:


> Striking from the bottom is pretty clear.



Well, _you_ thought drop bear's meaning was clear. I interpreted it differently. As it turns out, my understanding of his question seems to be closer to what he meant. You can choose to play "gotcha" over the fact that he didn't spell out the exact parameters of his original question or you can choose to try understanding what he meant and work on having a clear discussion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> There is no "Bjj mount". There's simply the mount position, and it's the exact same position across the board. You see people with no training whatsoever achieving the mount position on someone, because it's probably the most dominant position in fighting.
> 
> Bjj only teaches you how to maintain it if you're on top, and how to escape from it if you're on bottom. If you're arguing that a "proper Bjj mount" is a grappler mount, well that's not exclusive to Bjj. Plenty of grappling styles teach mount stability these days.
> 
> What strikes do you feel would be effective from the bottom of a mount?



I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top  of you. And part of the OP was



drop bear said:


> If you are on your back most of the ability to generate force is gone. Where the guy on top can use his body and use gravity..



Which is not true if you know anything about power generation, there are more ways that turning the waist to generate a good strike


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top  of you. And part of the OP was



I said bottom of the mount, which means you're on the bottom of someone's mount with your back to the floor. It's a very inferior position to be in, and in the vast majority of situations the person who achieves mount is going to dominate the person on the bottom.

There are other positions where someone is on top of you. Nearly all are bad to strike from. The only exception to that is Guard. AFAIK it's the only dominant position you can achieve while on your back.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top of you.


Fair enough. There are certainly many more than 2 positions where someone can be on top of you. It really helps to have a common vocabulary so we can discuss the differences meaningfully.

Here are some of the more common ground positions:

Mount: one fighter is sitting on his opponents chest or midsection, facing the head. This can come in several flavors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses:

High mount





Low mount





Technical mount





Side mount: one fighter is laying chest to chest perpendicular to the bottom fighter:






Knee mount/knee ride: On fighter is on top with his shin across the belly of the fighter on bottom:





Scarf hold: the top fighter is laying across the bottom fighter facing his head and controlling the head and an arm:





Guard: any time the fighter on bottom has his legs either around the top fighter (closed guard)or between himself and the top fighter (open guard), that is considered the guard position. There are a ton of variations, but the examples below should give an idea.

Closed guard:





Open guard





As Hanzou mentioned, these positions are not unique to BJJ. I'm using the most common English names, rather than going into Japanese or names specific to certain arts.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I said bottom of the mount, which means you're on the bottom of someone's mount with your back to the floor. It's a very inferior position to be in, and in the vast majority of situations the person who achieves mount is going to dominate the person on the bottom.
> 
> There are other positions where someone is on top of you. Nearly all are bad to strike from. The only exception to that is Guard. AFAIK it's the only dominant position you can achieve while on your back.



Getting totally CMA IMA on you, it depends on the actual position that I am in at the time as to what my response will be. And I am wondering how you define "striking" because I am guessing we do not define it the same way


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Fair enough. There are certainly many more than 2 positions where someone can be on top of you. It really helps to have a common vocabulary so we can discuss the differences meaningfully.
> 
> Here are some of the more common ground positions:
> 
> ...



I think we are running into the same thing.... what the definition of a strike is and I am beginning to believe the consensus here, form the grappling side of the house, is that it must be a closed fist punch.... that is not the way CMA views a strike.



Tony Dismukes said:


> As Hanzou mentioned, these positions are not unique to BJJ. I'm using the most common English names, rather than going into Japanese or names specific to certain arts.



Yes they are, but as I said I am not a BJJ person. I am also not a grappler nor a JMA person. I am a CMA person (have been for over 20 years) and we have our own terminology and it is mostly Chinese or when translated idioms, Add to that that English is the native language of the minority (me) in my house, so forgive my ignorance on terminology here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Since your comment was in reply to a comment of mine, I thought you might have intended it to apply to me. If you didn't, then maybe you can clarify that. If you did, then please provide even an iota of evidence for your assertion.


If you don't believe the comment applies to you then stop worrying about it.  It seems like a nerve was struck so........



> Not at all. I stated that _from one very specific position_, striking is not generally a good idea. Along the same lines, I could say "if your opponent is standing 3 feet behind you, then trying to initiate a choke is not likely to be effective." Does that mean I'm dismissive of grappling now? I just believe there is a time and place for everything.


So now your resorting to absurd comparisons.  There is a big difference between trying to choke someone 3 feet behind you and striking someone directly in front of you within striking distance.  Who's trying to play gotcha here?  


> Well, _you_ thought drop bear's meaning was clear. I interpreted it differently. As it turns out, my understanding of his question seems to be closer to what he meant. You can choose to play "gotcha" over the fact that he didn't spell out the exact parameters of his original question or you can choose to try understanding what he meant and work on having a clear discussion.


Like I said the question was asked and answered.  If you don't believe it's effective then great don't use it, don't train in it, and stop worrying about it.  Me I'll keep on training how I want and you keep doing the same.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Getting totally CMA IMA on you, it depends on the actual position that I am in at the time as to what my response will be. And I am wondering how you define "striking" because I am guessing we do not define it the same way



Well that's why I asked what type of strikes you're talking about. You have a very limited strike range, and the person on top has nearly all the advantage if you decide to start trading blows.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> If you don't believe the comment applies to you then stop worrying about it. It seems like a nerve was struck so........



Well yes, I do tend to get mildly annoyed if I think I'm being accused of saying things that I haven't said and don't believe. Probably a character flaw on my part, I guess.

If you aren't willing to say whether you intended your comment (which was in reply to one of mine) to apply to me, then I guess that says a lot about whether you are conversing in good faith.

As for me, if I want to accuse somebody of something I'll state it clearly and back it up if requested. If I _don't_ intend to accuse somebody of something, but through some miscommunication they think that I am making such an accusation, I will immediately do my best to clear up the confusion. Perhaps you have a different philosophy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason for why you would want to.



ballen0351 said:


> So now your resorting to absurd comparisons. There is a big difference between trying to choke someone 3 feet behind you and striking someone directly in front of you within striking distance.



If you don't like that example, I can supply others. I chose that one specifically because it _would_ be possible to land an effective strike from that position. The point is, there are some situations where striking is a good idea, some where grappling is a good idea, some where both can work, and some where neither will work. You might disagree with me about one particular position where I don't think striking is a good option, but to portray that as me denigrating striking or me saying that grappling is better than striking in general is fundamentally dishonest. (Either that or it displays some real problems with reading comprehension, your choice.)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well yes, I do tend to get mildly annoyed if I think I'm being accused of saying things that I haven't said and don't believe. Probably a character flaw on my part, I guess.
> 
> If you aren't willing to say whether you intended your comment (which was in reply to one of mine) to apply to me, then I guess that says a lot about whether you are conversing in good faith.
> 
> As for me, if I want to accuse somebody of something I'll state it clearly and back it up if requested. If I _don't_ intend to accuse somebody of something, but through some miscommunication they think that I am making such an accusation, I will immediately do my best to clear up the confusion. Perhaps you have a different philosophy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason for why you would want to.


It was not directed at you personally it was more a general statement towards the BJJ mafia that runs from thread to thread style to style running off at the mouth.  If that's not YOU then again as I said stop worry about it.  I have no problem telling you directly what I think trust me.  I've spent plenty of time in MT time out for that.



> If you don't like that example, I can supply others. I chose that one specifically because it _would_ be possible to land an effective strike from that position. The point is, there are some situations where striking is a good idea, some where grappling is a good idea, some where both can work, and some where neither will work. You might disagree with me about one particular position where I don't think striking is a good option, but to portray that as me denigrating striking or me saying that grappling is better than striking in general is fundamentally dishonest. (Either that or it displays some real problems with reading comprehension, your choice.)


You chose an impossible and down right silly example to down play the point.  I don't think anyone said striking was the #1 choice in this situation.  However it's not as far fetched as your trying to make it out to be.  It is a viable technique that used by itself or to set up another technique can work.  You don't think so great don't use it.  I'm not trying to talk you out if it.  Quite frankly I don't care what you do it has no effect in me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well that's why I asked what type of strikes you're talking about. You have a very limited strike range, and the person on top has nearly all the advantage if you decide to start trading blows.



Are you defining strike as using only your hands?

As for answering your question, that depends on the position and the forces involved.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Are you defining strike as using only your hands?
> 
> As for answering your question, that depends on the position and the forces involved.



Interesting. How about you describe the strikes that would apply to the positions Tony posted earlier. You don't need to do the Guard.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Interesting. How about you describe the strikes that would apply to the positions Tony posted earlier. You don't need to do the Guard.



Interesting. How about you answer my question


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Interesting. How about you answer my question



I'm defining strikes as strikes. That includes kicks if applicable.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

You really can't define a word with the same word, you know this don't you?

We have that you consider kicks as strikes, ok, what about the hands, is that only closed fist or are there other options, is it only hands and feet or are there other things that can be used that you would consider a strike..... but then this is starting to feel like pulling teeth to get a detailed answer out of you as to how you define a strike so lets end on this note.

In CMA the body is considered a fist so a strike can be made with just about anything as for how to respond to each picture supplied, that is rather difficult to say since there are variables to each posture and the power (or force) being used is not going to be exactly the same in all situations defined as, say, a Technical mount. So there is no "if you do A I do B" from a CMA perspective. However I am also not saying that a strike is the way to go in all pictures supplied, Qinna would be much better in a couple and there are a couple that rather befuddles me as to how to respond. But I highly doubt I would run into any of those outside of a BJJ or grappling school so I don't much care about them.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> You really can't define a word with the same word, you know this don't you?
> 
> We have that you consider kicks as strikes, ok, what about the hands, is that only closed fist or are there other options, is it only hands and feet or are there other things that can be used that you would consider a strike..... but then this is starting to feel like pulling teeth to get a detailed answer out of you as to how you define a strike so lets end on this note.
> 
> In CMA the body is considered a fist so a strike can be made with just about anything as for how to respond to each picture supplied, that is rather difficult to say since there are variables to each posture and the power (or force) being used is not going to be exactly the same in all situations defined as, say, a Technical mount. So there is no "if you do A I do B" from a CMA perspective. However I am also not saying that a strike is the way to go in all pictures supplied, Qinna would be much better in a couple and there are a couple that rather befuddles me as to how to respond. But I highly doubt I would run into any of those outside of a BJJ or grappling school so I don't much care about them.



Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games? 

For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold?  What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?
> 
> For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold?  What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.


Y do you care they wont work anyway remember


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Y do you care they wont work anyway remember



Sheer curiousity. We're supposed to be having a discussion aren't we?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah it can happen, just like you can get struck by lightning and hit by a bus in the same day.





Hanzou said:


> Punching should be the last thing you consider in that situation





Hanzou said:


> don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.



Its not really a discussion if your mind is made up and your just looking for another chance to say it wont work


----------



## Argus (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?
> 
> For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold?  What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.



Semantics are everything.

Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.

If I may get all Carl Jungs on you, what we also have here is a difference in communication between "sensing," or concrete thinking, and "intuitive," or abstract thinking.

In order to have a productive discussion, you first have to pin down what exactly is being argued about, and any assumptions, premises, definitions, and nuances or approaches that either party may have. This is the effort that Xue was making. Without doing that, you're forever arguing apples and oranges, and you'll be in disagreement even if you're fundamentally arguing the same thing -- to say nothing of furthering any level of personal understanding as a result.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 24, 2015)

It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".

There is a good reason that

- kick is good for kicking range,
- punch is good for punching range, and
- lock/throw/ground-game is good for clinching range.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - kick is good for kicking range,
> - punch is good for punching range, and
> - lock/throw/ground-game is good for clinching range.


Yep and NEVER violate the above stated rules


----------



## Argus (Jun 24, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".



Depends entirely on your training, the circumstances of the clinch, where your arms/legs/elbows/shoulders/hands/knees are, where, and how you strike.

In my limited observation of fights in which clinches occur, it seems that a lot of people don't practice striking from, and producing power at close range, and therefore try to strike from outside using wide hooks or uppercuts, and I could see how that could open you up in a clinch. But there are many, many more ways to strike than that.

It's all context. It's not what you do, but how, when, why, and with what intent or effect you do it. I've learned to be very careful to say that "it's not a good idea to do A when B," because chances are, there people out there who have more experience with all aspects of both A and B who know more than I presume to think I do. The more flexible your thinking, the more you're likely to be able to find proper applications for things that you never would have presumed present before.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".
> 
> There is a good reason that
> 
> ...


Actually, there's a whole art to striking effectively from the clinch. Randy Couture is a master of it. So are many high level Muay Thai fighters.

I don't claim to be a master of the tactic (or of anything else), but I do practice some clinch striking concepts that I learned from a JKD instructor.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 24, 2015)

Argus said:


> Semantics are everything.
> 
> Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.
> 
> ...


Quoted For Truth. I've seen way too many heated arguments (here and elsewhere) go on for a long time despite the fact that the disputants weren't really arguing different points - just making different assumptions about the meaning of the terms being discussed.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

Argus said:


> Semantics are everything.
> 
> Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.
> 
> ...



Except we both know what strikes are, and thanks to Tony, the positions are equally understood. I don't believe that my request is asking too much. If you feel that there's some strikes possible from those inferior positions, please describe them. This isn't quantum physics, or trying to figure out the meaning of life. My request is a very simple question that can be met with an equally simple answer.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not really a discussion if your mind is made up and your just looking for another chance to say it wont work



Whike my mind is made up, I'm still curious to see a CMA response to the positions discussed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Except we both know what strikes are, and thanks to Tony, the positions are equally understood. I don't believe that my request is asking too much. If you feel that there's some strikes possible from those inferior positions, please describe them. This isn't quantum physics, or trying to figure out the meaning of life. My request is a very simple question that can be met with an equally simple answer.


BUT you already know what strikes are and thanks to Tony you know the positions and after all this isn't quantum physics and with your many claims of your training and understanding of both striking and grappling arts you should already know the simple answers


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top  of you. And part of the OP was
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not true if you know anything about power generation, there are more ways that turning the waist to generate a good strike



  someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> BUT you already know what strikes are and thanks to Tony you know the positions and after all this isn't quantum physics and with your many claims of your training and understanding of both striking and grappling arts you should already know the simple answers



I've never trained in CMA though, so I am genuinely curious about that perspective.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?
> 
> For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold?  What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.



The fact you do not want to clarify does not make what I am asking silly, and I already answered you in the previous post, which you obviously did not read thoroughly because I also said in there some of those befuddle me.... so please reread it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I've never trained in CMA though, so I am genuinely curious about that perspective.


 
Based on past experience and reading of your other posts I find this doubtful


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.



There are other ways to generate power for striking kiddo, don't want to believe, that's ok, I'm good with that..... have a nice day


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.


preventing full power does not equal no power.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.





ballen0351 said:


> This guy agrees with me


You should tell this guy his punch has no power


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2015)

Make sure you tell him hes not supposed to punch from his back also


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Make sure you tell him hes not supposed to punch from his back also



He wasn't mounted, nor was his trunk compressed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> He wasn't mounted, nor was his trunk compressed.


Agree with you 100% there. When your opponent's both arms are all free, that's your mistake. IMO, a successful clinch or successful mount should require you to wrap your opponent's arms and take his striking ability away.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> There are other ways to generate power for striking kiddo, don't want to believe, that's ok, I'm good with that..... have a nice day



No. You don't get to just be mysterious. That is a cop out.

If there are other ways to generate power that don't link your feet to your hips or your hands. Then you can explain them.

If you cant then nobody can believe you. And if you are fine with that. Then fair enough.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> preventing full power does not equal no power.



It is not a static position though. You do not want to be trading punches with a guy who is hitting harder than you.

And you would want to hit real hard to compete with the power generated by a person who is sitting on top of you. If you were to use this as an actual tactic.

If you were both tied up and you had nothing better to do. Hit them sure. But that would hardly be considered some sort of escape.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 24, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Make sure you tell him hes not supposed to punch from his back also



I will also tell the other guy not to roll off top position to get leg locks. Because you can punch better from top.


----------



## Argus (Jun 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No. You don't get to just be mysterious. That is a cop out.
> 
> If there are other ways to generate power that don't link your feet to your hips or your hands. Then you can explain them.
> 
> If you cant then nobody can believe you. And if you are fine with that. Then fair enough.



Elbow in. Use the ground for power/support. You can also use "short" or "explosive" power cultivated in many softer CMA styles. But really, if you want a proper explanation, go train WC / XingYi / Tai Chi, etc.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Argus said:


> Elbow in. Use the ground for power/support. You can also use "short" or "explosive" power cultivated in many softer CMA styles. But really, if you want a proper explanation, go train WC / XingYi / Tai Chi, etc.



See an actual explanation. Makes the poster sound like he knows what he is on about. Without the nonsense.

Not so hard.


----------



## Argus (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> See an actual explanation. Makes the poster sound like he knows what he is on about. Without the nonsense.
> 
> Not so hard.



The funny thing is, I'm sure Xue knows far more than I do


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> He wasn't mounted, nor was his trunk compressed.


No but drop bear says you can't generate power if you waist feet connection or some nonsense like that is broken.  His legs are tied up and he's on his back.  But he seems pretty powerful to me


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I will also tell the other guy not to roll off top position to get leg locks. Because you can punch better from top.


Great but that's not the topic.  The topic is strikes when your on the bottom.  He's on his back the other guy "has a position of advantage"  until he get hit from the guy on his back


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> It is not a static position though. You do not want to be trading punches with a guy who is hitting harder than you.


I don't want to trade punches with anyone ever of I can avoid it.


> And you would want to hit real hard to compete with the power generated by a person who is sitting on top of you. If you were to use this as an actual tactic.


What is "real hard"  my real hard is different then your real hard.  I want to hit hard enough to get a desired reaction.  


> If you were both tied up and you had nothing better to do. Hit them sure. But that would hardly be considered some sort of escape.


Who ever claimed hitting was a dorm of escape?


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> No but drop bear says you can't generate power if you waist feet connection or some nonsense like that is broken.  His legs are tied up and he's on his back.  But he seems pretty powerful to me



He was talking about the mounted position, not the position shown in that gif you posted.

If you notice, he DID have a connection to his trunk, hips, and feet in that gif. As soon as he punches, he curls his back, twists his hips, and pushes off with his free foot to generate enough power to punch the other guy in the face. In the mount, that connection is either broken, or heavily restricted.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> He was talking about the mounted position, not the position shown in that gif you posted.
> 
> If you notice, he DID have a connection to his trunk, hips, and feet in that gif. As soon as he punches, he curls his back, twists his hips, and pushes off with his free foot to generate enough power to punch the other guy in the face. In the mount, that connection is either broken, or heavily restricted.


No he sat up so he could reach him.  Punching isn't magic.  It's pretty simple, ball up hand swing hand at other guys face.  Any grown adult has enough muscle mass in their upper body to punch someone hard without the "proper" technique.  Sure proper technique makes it even harder but im.strong enough with my right to cause a reaction even when im laying flat on my stomach with a guy trapping my left arm with his arms and handcuffs.  I didn't use feet bone connected to the leg bone.  I balled up my little right hand and hit him in his face.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> No he sat up so he could reach him.  Punching isn't magic.  It's pretty simple, ball up hand swing hand at other guys face.  Any grown adult has enough muscle mass in their upper body to punch someone hard without the "proper" technique.  Sure proper technique makes it even harder but im.strong enough with my right to cause a reaction even when im laying flat on my stomach with a guy trapping my left arm with his arms and handcuffs.  I didn't use feet bone connected to the leg bone.  I balled up my little right hand and hit him in his face.



What are you going on about? No one said that punching is "magic". We're talking pure mechanics here, and the mechanics of what DB was talking about applies to the gif you posted. The fighter is clearly using his hips, trunk, and foot to generate power into that punch. Those things would be heavily restricted if the other guy had him in the position that DB was talking about, thus limiting the amount of power he could generate.

I have no issue with pointing out that DB is wrong that you can't punch effectively from your back. However, he is correct that your striking power is heavily limited if your opponent has you in a vastly inferior position like the high mount, modified mount, or the side mount. So much so, that trading punches with someone while in those positions is a terrible idea.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Again just because you can't use proper mechanics or technique doesn't mean you can't throw an effective punch. Is it ideal no and I've never said otherwise  but a full grown adult male has enough muscle to throw an effective punch without proper body mechanics.  Would I purposely fight that way of course not but  you can and I have done it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No. You don't get to just be mysterious. That is a cop out.
> 
> If there are other ways to generate power that don't link your feet to your hips or your hands. Then you can explain them.
> 
> If you cant then nobody can believe you. And if you are fine with that. Then fair enough.


 
Don't much care what you believe and I am not going to train a stranger via the web. Been there done that and I did not much enjoy the result.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Great but that's not the topic.  The topic is strikes when your on the bottom.  He's on his back the other guy "has a position of advantage"  until he get hit from the guy on his back



Well no he did not have a striking position of advantage. Hence why my comment links. See if he had jumped off a top position to hit that leg lock.(and most people do). Then he lost that advantage. Gave the other guy an opportunity to strike and escape.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't much care what you believe and I am not going to train a stranger via the web. Been there done that and I did not much enjoy the result.



You don't understand the concepts. Even argus had an idea of the mechanics that are occurring.

Why would you be training someone if you don't understand the subject?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well no he did not have a striking position of advantage. Hence why my comment links. See if he had jumped off a top position to hit that leg lock.(and most people do). Then he lost that advantage. Gave the other guy an opportunity to strike and escape.


Again trying to change the questions to fit the answer you want.  The guy on top is irrelevant.  The guy on bottom doesn't have perfect mechanics or body position so according to you strikes are not effective.  Well that's just not the case


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You don't understand the concepts. Even argus had an idea of the mechanics that are occurring.
> 
> Why would you be training someone if you don't understand the subject?


You not understanding the answers has nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic.  You can't train a rock they are too dense


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't want to trade punches with anyone ever of I can avoid it.
> 
> What is "real hard"  my real hard is different then your real hard.  I want to hit hard enough to get a desired reaction.
> 
> Who ever claimed hitting was a dorm of escape?



I will trade punches if I am hitting harder or in a better position. So if I am in mount I will happily trade. The risk of me loosing that is small.

The desired reaction would be they would say "ouch" and get off. Even. Falling unconscious like that video would be nice. Also kind of hilarious. The undesired reaction would be responding with elbows.

And as to who thinks hitting is a form of escape. That would be hitting effectively unless for some reason you want to leaves the guy sitting on top of you. And I cant think of why you would leave a guy there in a fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Again trying to change the questions to fit the answer you want.  The guy on top is irrelevant.  The guy on bottom doesn't have perfect mechanics or body position so according to you strikes are not effective.  Well that's just not the case



What on earth are you on about. Leg lock is not a top position. The other guy is not on the bottom.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> You not understanding the answers has nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic.  You can't train a rock they are too dense



Nobody understands his answers. They are too mysterious. Seriously read them. They are just vague references. You can't discuss a vage reference.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I will trade punches if I am hitting harder or in a better position. So if I am in mount I will happily trade. The risk of me loosing that is small.


I don't fight for fun.  I'm not trading anything I'm winning.  


> The desired reaction would be they would say "ouch" and get off. Even. Falling unconscious like that video would be nice. Also kind of hilarious. The undesired reaction would be responding with elbows.


There are plenty of desired reactions.  What I find hilarious is you can't admit you were wrong when you started this thread 


> And as to who thinks hitting is a form of escape. That would be hitting effectively unless for some reason you want to leaves the guy sitting on top of you. And I cant think of why you would leave a guy there in a fight.


A form of escape no.  Using it to set up an escape technique absolutely


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> What on earth are you on about. Leg lock is not a top position. The other guy is not on the bottom.


He's on his back and has to punch the guy above him.  Call it what you want


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> He's on his back and has to punch the guy above him.  Call it what you want



Above him when he punched?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Above him when he punched?


Yep it's not a Complicated thing here.  He had to sit up off the mat sonce he was on the ground or lower tgen the other guy to reach the guy who's head was higher or above him.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Nobody understands his answers. They are too mysterious. Seriously read them. They are just vague references. You can't discuss a vage reference.


I understand him fine.  Stop trolling and maybe it will make sense


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't fight for fun.  I'm not trading anything I'm winning.
> 
> There are plenty of desired reactions.  What I find hilarious is you can't admit you were wrong when you started this thread
> 
> A form of escape no.  Using it to set up an escape technique absolutely



Trading punches can either be for fun or for serious. It is when you and the other guy are punching at about the same time. 

Setting up an escape would be escaping wouldn't it?

Look if someone could make bottom position punching actually something I could do then I would admit I am wrong. The best we have is that someone has done it.which is different. 

I mean people have finished fights jumping off walls or using flying triangles and all sorts of crazy stuff. But that does not mean you or I could pull that off with any reliably.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Trading punches can either be for fun or for serious. It is when you and the other guy are punching at about the same time.


Again I don't fight for fun.  



> Setting up an escape would be escaping wouldn't it?


Could be or it could be used to set up a different technique.  Like using body shots to set up a head shot.  Use strike from the bottom to set up something else.  Or using strikes from the bottom to cause the top guy to adjust his position so you can do something else.  


> Look if someone could make bottom position punching actually something I could do then I would admit I am wrong. The best we have is that someone has done it.which is different.




I mean people have finished fights jumping off walls or using flying triangles and all sorts of crazy stuff. But that does not mean you or I could pull that off with any reliably.[/QUOTE]
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's not a viable technique.  There are things I can't due because of my size, age, Injury history or I'm just not talented enough to do.  That doesn't make them bad techniques.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep it's not a Complicated thing here.  He had to sit up off the mat sonce he was on the ground or lower tgen the other guy to reach the guy who's head was higher or above him.


Yeah, no. You're talking about something completely different here. Arlovski was not underneath his opponent or in an inferior position when he threw that punch. The two fighters were pretty much in an equal position. The other guy's head might have been slightly higher when he started the punch, but that doesn't mean he was on top. It's more like if they were standing and one fighter was a bit taller than the other.

No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours. What we're saying is that when one fighter on the ground has a dominant top position, then the fighter on the ground is overwhelmingly likely to lose if he makes it a striking contest. We're saying that because we have a lot of experience with those particular positions.

You don't have to agree with us. You're free to ignore the experience of those who have intense specialized training in those particular aspects of a fight and train however you want. However, bringing up an example like that Arlovski fight is just a non sequiter that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're just inventing your own idea of what our words mean and arguing against that idea without making any effort to understand our actual meaning. It's as if we were talking about weather in Alaska saying "it's cold up there in the north" and you were to respond by saying "Nonsense! It's 90 degrees in North Richland Hills, Texas."


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, no. You're talking about something completely different here. Arlovski was not underneath his opponent or in an inferior position when he threw that punch. The two fighters were pretty much in an equal position. The other guy's head might have been slightly higher when he started the punch, but that doesn't mean he was on top. It's more like if they were standing and one fighter was a bit taller than the other.


Nonsense you see what you want because well that's what you have been doing this whole thread.  


> No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours.


That's exactly what DB and Haz have been saying all along.  That may not be what YOUR saying but again the forum doesn't revolve around you and not every post is about you.


> What we're saying is that when one fighter on the ground has a dominant top position, then the fighter on the ground is overwhelmingly likely to lose if he makes it a striking contest. We're saying that because we have a lot of experience with those particular positions.


As do I and I also have NEVER said punching should be your go to.  I said it can be a viable option and have given proof to back up the claim 


> You don't have to agree with us. You're free to ignore the experience of those who have intense specialized training in those particular aspects of a fight and train however you want.


Well you might want to rethink all your "experience" since you are wrong.


> However, bringing up an example like that Arlovski fight is just a non sequiter that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're just inventing your own idea of what our words mean and arguing against that idea without making any effort to understand our actual meaning. It's as if we were talking about weather in Alaska saying "it's cold up there in the north" and you were to respond by saying "Nonsense! It's 90 degrees in North Richland Hills, Texas."


Again nonsense but I expect nothing less from the BJJ mafia around here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You don't understand the concepts. Even argus had an idea of the mechanics that are occurring.
> 
> Why would you be training someone if you don't understand the subject?



ahh. but I do, however you do not.... but this is now getting rather childish so you continue to rail at windmills if you like, but I see no further reason to allow you to waste my time.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

@Hanzou

A better answer, although you likely will not like it, I was rather annoyed last night with things in real life and should have waited for today to respond.

First, why the continued question about striking; I suspect that you feel a strike can only be made with a foot or a closed fist and that is simply not the case from a CMA perspective, if you reread my post #100 you will see that I already said this and you still did not respond to my question to discover what you are calling a strike, and defining a word with the same word is not acceptable. I tried to explain why I was asking and yet you still seem to take offense to that post. In CMA there is a saying is “the body is a fist”, this means you can strike with just about everything. Also there are multiple hand configurations that are not closed fist that are also strikes.

In addition, I never said striking would work on all postures supplied (see post #81 for clarification) by Tony in post #89. As a matter of fact I did say that a couple of them befuddle me (I can’t figure out how you would get out of them). But I doubt I would see either of those outside of a BJJ school or a grappling competition so knowing how to get out of them is not really a priority for me. However if I ever have the opportunity to learn how I would most certainly take advantage of that opportunity, and since  I never said striking would get you out of all of them I do not understand the continued request to tell you how striking would work on all of them, however in some situation it is an option. I also said that qinna might be a better choice (see post #100)

Now, I also said in post #100 that in CMA there is no “If you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since it all depends on the force coming at ‘B’. Also since Tony posted the pictures in post #89 I have been having a discussion with a BJJ person who is rather well trained, has rather high rank in BJJ, who is quite skilled and whose view on this I respect and I have discovered that in some cases my response may not work and in others it may but in all striking tends to be secondary. Also the pictures provided, although good, are not the way that the specific mount will be done every single time, there are variations. Therefore, once again, there is no “you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since ‘A’ is not always the same. So, after discussion with the BJJ person I mentioned, I do see that my thoughts on how to get out may be wrong on a couple of them, especially “high mount”, but I would like to try what I was thinking, to see if it would work someday. Now back to the postures in the pictures; Of the postures provided most I do not see striking as the way to get out of them, although it is a possibility in a couple of them and in one of them I see it as having a rather high success rate, assuming the posture is done exactly the same way as shown in the picture. But this is not a kick with a foot of a closed fist punch (that is why what you view as striking is so important to the discussion, and as I previously said defining a word with the same word is simply not acceptable).

I also discovered in my discussion that the art I do and the one I use to do (that was my favorite actually) can be categorized as standup grappling. But my favorite one also was quite interested in strikes that hit like a truck too. 

That is the best answer I can give you based on still photos

Now as for Drop Bear’s lack of knowledge on power generation, and telling me I am copping out, and don't know, that you seem to agree with, I will say this and only this, look into Fajin. But I will not discuss it or teach him, you or anyone else on the web.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours.





ballen0351 said:


> That's exactly what DB and Haz have been saying all along.


Nope. That might be what you _thought_ they were saying, but it absolutely not what they said and not what they meant. Feel free to ask them if they meant anything of the sort.

If you can find a quote from either one of them saying that you can't strike effectively on the ground or that you can't strike someone whose head is higher than yours, then I will post a new thread on the forum entitled "I, Tony Dismukes, am a big ugly Stupid-Head."

Since both of them have stated repeatedly that it _is_ possible to strike effectively on the ground and neither have said anything about striking someone whose head is higher than yours, I'm not too worried about having to make that post. (BTW - "on top of" can indicate multiple situations, but all of them involve more than just one persons head being higher than the other.)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Here is 1 of several posts from Hanz


> don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

I'd post more but I'm on a phone so the multiquote doesnt work and well I don't care that much


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> @Hanzou
> 
> A better answer, although you likely will not like it, I was rather annoyed last night with things in real life and should have waited for today to respond.
> 
> ...



Well just FYI, I do know that a strike doesn't need to just be closed fists or kicks. I did do JMA which includes many unorthodox striking techniques. One of the strikes in Bjj is the head butt after all.

That said, I think part of the issue here is theory versus application. The reason I agree so much with Drop Bear is that we come from similar perspectives. If someone tells me that x is effective, I need to see x being used on a semi-regular basis in some form of fighting. One thing I notice about CMA is that it uses a lot of theory and concepts, but I see little of those concepts being used on a regular basis anywhere, even in Chinese-based MMA or Chinese street fighting where CMA is being applied. So when you told me to look into "Faijin", I pulled up this video;






And I simply find stuff like that to be suspect, because not only does it look incredible, but I've never seen it applied in an uncontrolled environment. You would think something like that would be used constantly, and anyone utilizing such skills would be dominating in fighting contests, or people who wanted to dominate in such contests would be falling over themselves to learn those concepts. The fact that no one has casts doubts on their validity.

Again, simply a difference of perspectives. I think that is the root of the disagreement here. Sort of a science vs religion sort of thing I suppose. No disrespect to anything you do Xue. I'm simply a bit skeptical at stuff like that in the vid.


----------



## Buka (Jun 25, 2015)




----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Well just FYI, I do know that a strike doesn't need to just be closed fists or kicks. I did do JMA which includes many unorthodox striking techniques. One of the strikes in Bjj is the head butt after all.
> 
> That said, I think part of the issue here is theory versus application. The reason I agree so much with Drop Bear is that we come from similar perspectives. If someone tells me that x is effective, I need to see x being used on a semi-regular basis in some form of fighting. One thing I notice about CMA is that it uses a lot of theory and concepts, but I see little of those concepts being used on a regular basis anywhere, even in Chinese-based MMA or Chinese street fighting where CMA is being applied. So when you told me to look into "Faijin", I pulled up this video;
> 
> ...



Then you have been talking to the wrong CMA people, and I have no control over that at all.

Of course I suppose now that video is supposed to be proof of how misguided I am..... and I am glad you find is suspect, I do too...not fajin, that's a show. You see videos on YouTube are put there by people that generally want to make themselves look good or make others look bad to those that do not know any better, They are looking for magic and fantasy and since CMA tends to not go around yelling how great it is, or challenge those that do..it is easy to post all sorts of ridiculousness and call it fajin, or no touch knockout or good CMA for that matter when it really is not....which is why I rarely take them as proof of anything.

Now to fajin: Seen it applied, felt it applied, applied it and it works rather well, but it is not something you can pick up quickly or from a video, it is not magic, it is mechanics, that is all, and if you want to at least see a good example of what it look like look to Chen Xiaowang videos, I doubt you will think it is of use and no insult intended, but I doubt you will understand it either. And to be honest I doubt you intentions in continuing this conversation at all.

Looking at a video is not going to help you understand it and like I said, I am not going to teach anyone over the internet so if you do not want to believe it and go with Drop Bear, be my guest.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

Buka said:


>



I am calm


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Here is 1 of several posts from Hanz


There is not a single word in that post claiming that you can't strike effectively on the ground or that you can't effectively strike someone whose head is higher than yours.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There is not a single word in that post claiming that you can't strike effectively on the ground or that you can't effectively strike someone whose head is higher than yours.


Huh?  Did you even read it?



> don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.



The very last sentence says "they (strikes to the head) are not effective"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Huh?  Did you even read it?
> 
> 
> 
> The very last sentence says "they (strikes to the head) are not effective"


Yep, I read it. It doesn't appear that you did.

The last sentence reads "they're not effective." The antecedent for "they" is *not* "strikes to the head" or "strikes to the head while on the ground" or "strikes to the head when that head is higher than yours." The antecedent is "punches to the head of someone *who is sitting on your chest*." Big difference there.

There are a ton of different positions where you are on the ground and your opponent's head is higher than yours. Only a small percentage of them involve someone sitting on your chest.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then you have been talking to the wrong CMA people, and I have no control over that at all.
> 
> Of course I suppose now that video is supposed to be proof of how misguided I am..... and I am glad you find is suspect, I do too...not fajin, that's a show. You see videos on YouTube are put there by people that generally want to make themselves look good or make others look bad to those that do not know any better, they are looking for magic and fantasy and since CMA tends to not go around yelling how great it is, or challenge those that do..it is easy to post all sorts of ridiculousness and call it fajin, or no touch knockout or good CMA for that matter when it really is not....which is why I rarely take them as proof of anything.
> 
> ...



Where did I say you're misguided? I'm simply pointing out that the Fajin there didn't look very realistic. I also checked out a few demos of Chen Xiaowang, and frankly its exactly that; demos. I find it a bit hard to believe that none of his students or pupils ever decided to use his teachings to become professional fighters in their own right, or that you hear much of Fajin outside of CMA circles.

Anyway as I said before, we simply come from two very different perspectives. I need to see something working on a non-compliant partner before I believe its a valid concept. I don't feel that that's a lack of understanding, but instead a very healthy dose of skepticism.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep, I read it. It doesn't appear that you did.
> 
> The last sentence reads "they're not effective." The antecedent for "they" is *not* "strikes to the head" or "strikes to the head while on the ground" or "strikes to the head when that head is higher than yours." The antecedent is "punches to the head of someone *who is sitting on your chest*." Big difference there.
> 
> There are a ton of different positions where you are on the ground and your opponent's head is higher than yours. Only a small percentage of them involve someone sitting on your chest.


See now your being a clown so you want to play stupid games you can play with yourself


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jun 25, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> See now your being a clown so you want to play stupid games you can play with yourself


Stupid games such as reading what was actually written and asking people what they actually meant rather than inventing straw man positions to project on other people and argue against? I was rather hoping that was a game everybody could play along with.

At this point I'm genuinely having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. It's as if Hanzou said "Swedish is not the primary language of people in _Portugal_" and you were to proclaim "Hanzou says that no one in _Europe_ speaks Swedish!". Portugal is a country in Europe, but it's not all of Europe. Bottom of mount is a position on the ground where someone's head is higher than yours, but it's no more reflective of all such positions than Portugal is reflective of all Europe.

You know, it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without inventing words to put in their mouth and then getting angry when they point out that those aren't their positions.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 25, 2015)

Folks,
Let's please try to keep things civil.  I'm seeing heat and tension rising, and I hope that won't lead anyone into something that violates the rules...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> ahh. but I do, however you do not.... but this is now getting rather childish so you continue to rail at windmills if you like, but I see no further reason to allow you to waste my time.



You have not made one specific point. So I really don't think you understand this discussion. The best you have done is other methods. Which was a waste of your time because it doesn't really say anything.

Do you spend much time fighting out of mount or side control?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Stupid games such as reading what was actually written and asking people what they actually meant rather than inventing straw man positions to project on other people and argue against? I was rather hoping that was a game everybody could play along with.
> 
> At this point I'm genuinely having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. It's as if Hanzou said "Swedish is not the primary language of people in _Portugal_" and you were to proclaim "Hanzou says that no one in _Europe_ speaks Swedish!". Portugal is a country in Europe, but it's not all of Europe. Bottom of mount is a position on the ground where someone's head is higher than yours, but it's no more reflective of all such positions than Portugal is reflective of all Europe.
> 
> You know, it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without inventing words to put in their mouth and then getting angry when they point out that those aren't their positions.


Dude if your not man enough to say you are wrong that is cool.  I expect nothing less from the bjj mafia anyway.  You boys have fun playing with yourselves


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

I don't even do bjj by the way.

I do other methods.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say you're misguided? I'm simply pointing out that the Fajin there didn't look very realistic. I also checked out a few demos of Chen Xiaowang, and frankly its exactly that; demos. I find it a bit hard to believe that none of his students or pupils ever decided to use his teachings to become professional fighters in their own right, or that you hear much of Fajin outside of CMA circles.
> 
> Anyway as I said before, we simply come from two very different perspectives. I need to see something working on a non-compliant partner before I believe its a valid concept. I don't feel that that's a lack of understanding, but instead a very healthy dose of skepticism.



Well I was right after all.... this is pretty much exactly where I thought you would go with this.... You really need to read Sun Si Bing Fa and then try and understand it.

You know nothing of my training but yet you assume you do.... predictable

Have a nice day


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You have not made one specific point. So I really don't think you understand this discussion. The best you have done is other methods. Which was a waste of your time because it doesn't really say anything.
> 
> Do you spend much time fighting out of mount or side control?



Again what you think does not matter to me at all

Are you able to read and comprehend what others write... because that question shows that you don't.

Now I really have wasted to much time on you....You have a nice day too


----------



## Argus (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say you're misguided? I'm simply pointing out that the Fajin there didn't look very realistic. I also checked out a few demos of Chen Xiaowang, and frankly its exactly that; demos. I find it a bit hard to believe that none of his students or pupils ever decided to use his teachings to become professional fighters in their own right, or that you hear much of Fajin outside of CMA circles.
> 
> Anyway as I said before, we simply come from two very different perspectives. I need to see something working on a non-compliant partner before I believe its a valid concept. I don't feel that that's a lack of understanding, but instead a very healthy dose of skepticism.



I trained with a Xingyi guy who was able to employ it _astonishingly_ well. And it's not as if fajin is something unfamiliar to me in Wing Chun, nor was this just some demonstration. What I mean is, he was able to generate a lot of power with an astonishingly small amount of movement even in sparring and free play, against a resisting, noncompliant partner (ie, me!). 

So, yeah. I don't need a youtube video for proof. Some of those Xingyi guys know their stuff!


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 25, 2015)

Argus said:


> I trained with a Xingyi guy who was able to employ it _astonishingly_ well. And it's not as if fajin is something unfamiliar to me in Wing Chun, nor was this just some demonstration. What I mean is, he was able to generate a lot of power with an astonishingly small amount of movement even in sparring and free play, against a resisting, noncompliant partner (ie, me!).
> 
> So, yeah. I don't need a youtube video for proof. Some of those Xingyi guys know their stuff!



Unfortunately, Anecdotal evidence means little to nothing. It's no better than saying that you arm-barred a Yeti in Malibu.

The simple truth is if this ability was possible, you would see someone utilize it in a professional manner somewhere. It wouldn't be utilized by some shadowy Kung Fu master somewhere. If something is real and effective, and would give someone an edge, you would see it everywhere. The fact that it's nowhere to be seen, even in Chinese MMA is quite telling.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 25, 2015)

Argus said:


> I trained with a Xingyi guy who was able to employ it _astonishingly_ well. And it's not as if fajin is something unfamiliar to me in Wing Chun, nor was this just some demonstration. What I mean is, he was able to generate a lot of power with an astonishingly small amount of movement even in sparring and free play, against a resisting, noncompliant partner (ie, me!).
> 
> So, yeah. I don't need a youtube video for proof. Some of those Xingyi guys know their stuff!



Yup, was a xingyi guy, it is my favorite of all styles I have trained and some of those guy hit damn hard, and they are fast and aggressive too.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Again what you think does not matter to me at all
> 
> Are you able to read and comprehend what others write... because that question shows that you don't.
> 
> Now I really have wasted to much time on you....You have a nice day too



Yeah. I can comprehend evasive answers. And trying to troll rather than discuss what could have been a normal technical discussion without people throwing their egos around.

I mean I can disagree with people on a technique. I explain how my point works they explain theirs. And nobody has to resort to "other methods" secret mystery's that nobody gets details about. And upset rage quitting.

I train in an environment where everything is up front and open. Failure happens people are humble enough to learn from that regardless of how long they have trained. It opens up an understanding of martial arts rather than keeps this darkness and miss conceptions going.

And there is a wonder why people have turned away from traditional methods that can only be explained by "other methods" and "I don't waste my time" explaining a process to here it is this is how it works. This is why it works and you may or may not get away with this if the other guy is fighting back.

I mean you cant post honestly if you don't care about other peoples opinion. That is the ultimate waste of time.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately, Anecdotal evidence means little to nothing. It's no better than saying that you arm-barred a Yeti in Malibu.
> 
> The simple truth is if this ability was possible, you would see someone utilize it in a professional manner somewhere. It wouldn't be utilized by some shadowy Kung Fu master somewhere. If something is real and effective, and would give someone an edge, you would see it everywhere. The fact that it's nowhere to be seen, even in Chinese MMA is quite telling.








If that is representative of fajin and its concepts. Then it is not far removed from basic hitting concepts. Where you are using relaxed explosion and body alignment over ogre strength.

Ok he is not moving the bag. But you can whip punch things without a heap of travelling force.


----------



## Argus (Jun 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Unfortunately, Anecdotal evidence means little to nothing. It's no better than saying that you arm-barred a Yeti in Malibu.
> 
> The simple truth is if this ability was possible, you would see someone utilize it in a professional manner somewhere. It wouldn't be utilized by some shadowy Kung Fu master somewhere. If something is real and effective, and would give someone an edge, you would see it everywhere. The fact that it's nowhere to be seen, even in Chinese MMA is quite telling.



Anecdotal evidence? Sure. But I'm not writing and defending a paper. Rather, I was indirectly suggesting that you might want to go get some experience for yourself before making claims about things you're completely ignorant of. If I started rambling on about ground fighting, which I'm entirely ignorant of, drawing conclusions and calling BS, I would expect you to put me in my place. Why do you think you can judge components of martial arts which you're entirely ignorant of, and don't even have a working definition, or understanding of to begin with?

I'm sure there are people using fajin in MMA. In fact, there's a Taichi instructor who spoke about fajin being present in boxing, among other arts that he also practiced in a sports context.

But, even the premise that there's nobody using a straight up CMA approach to fajin in MMA is flat out assumption on your part. I'm sure there's a small number of people who have invested the time into these TMA's as well as MMA, are competent in both, and utilize it in competitions. But that's going to be a small minority, simply because most people who are interested in competing in MMA are going to train arts that cater more to that goal. Why would you expect them to invest years into some internal CMA? It might help them, but it's not essential, so you can't argue that "if there were any merit, it'd be everywhere."

Your posts are filled with far too many straw-man arguments and assumptions. Someone says "X can be used here," and you generalize and exaggerate X, and then ask why it's not used everywhere if it's of any value. There are so many holes in that logic, I don't even know where to begin...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 25, 2015)

Boxing hard punching.


----------



## Argus (Jun 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Boxing hard punching.



Very similar in concept.

What many CMA's do is simply learn to shorten this motion up to get the same kind of power when you don't have a lot of room to gain momentum. That often requires a slightly different structure depending on the type of range, and attacks you're employing, and varies from art to art. But, that's more or less what we call "fajin"


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 26, 2015)

Argus said:


> Anecdotal evidence? Sure. But I'm not writing and defending a paper. Rather, I was indirectly suggesting that you might want to go get some experience for yourself before making claims about things you're completely ignorant of. If I started rambling on about ground fighting, which I'm entirely ignorant of, drawing conclusions and calling BS, I would expect you to put me in my place. Why do you think you can judge components of martial arts which you're entirely ignorant of, and don't even have a working definition, or understanding of to begin with?
> 
> 'm sure there are people using fajin in MMA. In fact, there's a Taichi instructor who spoke about fajin being present in boxing, among other arts that he also practiced in a sports context.



Yet I have never seen boxers knocking people back several feet by barely touching them. Further, it would be pretty tough for a boxer to punch his way out of the bottom of a mount. The original claim that started all of this was the idea that you could somehow generate tons of power in a relatively short amount of space. Yet we never see this feat performed outside of demonstrations.



> But, even the premise that there's nobody using a straight up CMA approach to fajin in MMA is flat out assumption on your part. I'm sure there's a small number of people who have invested the time into these TMA's as well as MMA, are competent in both, and utilize it in competitions. But that's going to be a small minority, simply because most people who are interested in competing in MMA are going to train arts that cater more to that goal. Why would you expect them to invest years into some internal CMA? It might help them, but it's not essential, so you can't argue that "if there were any merit, it'd be everywhere."



You seem ignorant of the nature of MMA. MMA is a highly competitive sport. In a highly competitive atmosphere, fighters within that sphere look for ANYTHING that will give them an edge over their competition. If these skills were truly as effective as seem to think they are, professional fighters everywhere would be clamoring to learn it. Look what happened to Bjj after Royce Gracie won the first UFC for example. Bjj went from some obscure Brazilian offshoot of Judo, to one of the most widely practiced MAs in the world. Why? Because it gave fighters an advantage. The fact that a bunch of hobbyist in a dojo can perform these incredible feats, but no professional is utilizing this skill is quite telling.



> Your posts are filled with far too many straw-man arguments and assumptions. Someone says "X can be used here," and you generalize and exaggerate X, and then ask why it's not used everywhere if it's of any value. There are so many holes in that logic, I don't even know where to begin...



Not quite. I ask what is X, and I get a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo. So, I go find X online, and its just demos of ki-power junk. When I bring this information back, I get a bunch of anecdotes about how you met some guy somewhere who could perform this "magic" on you. Then I get attacked when I have the audacity to be skeptical about all of this?

Incredible.....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 26, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> It's no better than saying that you arm-barred a Yeti in Malibu.


And there you go again taking analogies to an absurd degree because you have not seen something with your own eyes.


----------



## Zero (Jun 26, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Just like throwing a pencil at a bad guy from 30 ft away.


This is actually a point in case and why hail marry moves or, alternatively, acts of desperation or madness can and do work - at times.

I am not proud of this but in high school a student was picking on my friend and shoving him at the front of the class.  From the back of the class I threw a pen at him.  I hit in him the eye and he was out of the game for a long while, I thank god he didn't suffer any permanent eye damage.  I felt very bad and actually apologised to him later, I had no intention to actually hit him in the eye or hurt him.  It was just an angry, reflex, stupid motion - but so often (!) when you just do the natural/desperate/reflex move - it actually, surprisingly, works!

Will throwing a pen across a crowded classroom hit the bad guy in the eye every time? No, but that time it needs to work, it just may well do so.


----------



## Zero (Jun 26, 2015)

drop bear said:


> someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.


I have huge triceps (having focused on my lats, triceps and quads) to generate enhanced and devastating striking power) so can generate enough piston power to KO from on my back with opponent sitting on my waist or chest, I guarantee if you are sitting on me _and I do_ connect, I will rock your noggin and you'll be spitting teeth and blood (down on my face I guess, so that actually doesn't sound too nice, yuk). I do not need to engage hips or to put weight behind my punch (although clearly being able to do so generates a lot more power).

That said, I would generally be working for guard from outset or bridge or a bridge and sweep of their downward strike to take top position (and have done so in tournament to downward reining strikes). Also, it's very risky to be putting out and exposing straight limbs to arm or wrist control via punches (or other strikes, such as palm strikes) when you are in mount or on ground as you can be transitioned into arm bar or forced into kimura (including if you are using upward forearm strikes) if it goes bad and it will go bad quite quickly.  So admit my optimal/desired move would not upward striking.

Upward head butts (which are a strike (in case Hanzou was wondering  )) to face when in very close range can be a surprise but you risk exposing your neck to neck crank such as kubi hishigi and other problems. 

While the first to admit that being able to put balanced weight behind a punch is a lovely thing, it's not such a hard thing if the timing is right to KO an opponent coming in while you are moving backwards (ie, no forward weight other than the arm).  Same again while on your back, a KO is possible but first to admit it is a hugely reduced opportunity (and _less_ power can be generated) and not necessarily the first thing you would be looking for - but as others have stated, that may be the very reason your opponent doesn't expect it and gets caught off guard.

I love knocking people out personally and enjoy and take more satisfaction in that than even a good submission and this has stood me to good effect in self defence, in real altercations on the street and in tournaments, including MMA. That said, I also trained in judo for years and supplement my karate with jujitsu.  I think in this day and age (or any), if you have the time (unless you are just focusing on the sport element of your specific style), you would be mad not to devote time to both stand up, striking and grappling.  It's all great fun!! Or am I wrong??


----------



## Zero (Jun 26, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I don't even do bjj by the way.
> 
> I do other methods.


BS!  It's too late to try that one dude!! 

...what are these "other methods" you speak of?


----------



## Zero (Jun 26, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Yet I have never seen boxers knocking people back several feet by barely touching them.







There's a one inch and a six inch punch for you...and a bit of backwards knocking going on to boot, for a bonus just for you Hanzou.

Although, I am struggling by what you mean "by barely touching them", not sure if you are now channelling "kiai" or dim mak into the conversation?  : )


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2015)

Zero said:


> BS!  It's too late to try that one dude!!
> 
> ...what are these "other methods" you speak of?



They are super secret other methods. 

And I do mma.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 26, 2015)

Zero said:


> There's a one inch and a six inch punch for you...and a bit of backwards knocking going on to boot, for a bonus just for you Hanzou.
> 
> Although, I am struggling by what you mean "by barely touching them", not sure if you are now channelling "kiai" or dim mak into the conversation?  : )



I said a boxer, or some other professional fighter. Not a Kung Fu movie actor doing a demo.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2015)

Zero said:


> There's a one inch and a six inch punch for you...and a bit of backwards knocking going on to boot, for a bonus just for you Hanzou.
> 
> Although, I am struggling by what you mean "by barely touching them", not sure if you are now channelling "kiai" or dim mak into the conversation?  : )



That guy took that bare knuckle hard enough to get thrown off his feet and didn't die.

There is some interesting mechanics going on there.

From my experience you compress forwards not backwards.


----------



## Buka (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm a Bruce Lee fanboy, all the way, have been since I was a young man. Proud to say so, too. But the well known one inch punch demo is based on the stance of the person getting punched, not on the power of the strike. Put your feet in that stance and have someone lightly push you to the chest.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want Bruce Lee punching me in the chest, not by a long shot, but balance in a base is just that.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 27, 2015)

Zero said:


> This is actually a point in case and why hail marry moves or, alternatively, acts of desperation or madness can and do work - at times.
> 
> I am not proud of this but in high school a student was picking on my friend and shoving him at the front of the class.  From the back of the class I threw a pen at him.  I hit in him the eye and he was out of the game for a long while, I thank god he didn't suffer any permanent eye damage.  I felt very bad and actually apologised to him later, I had no intention to actually hit him in the eye or hurt him.  It was just an angry, reflex, stupid motion - but so often (!) when you just do the natural/desperate/reflex move - it actually, surprisingly, works!
> 
> Will throwing a pen across a crowded classroom hit the bad guy in the eye every time? No, but that time it needs to work, it just may well do so.


I was once at school flicking the inside of my pen and it went over my shoulder and hit a fly in mid air and stunned it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 27, 2015)

drop bear said:


> That guy took that bare knuckle hard enough to get thrown off his feet and didn't die.


A simple push can cause the same result too. I have never convinced that "short power" can cause any serious damage.


----------



## Zero (Jun 28, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I said a boxer, or some other professional fighter. Not a Kung Fu movie actor doing a demo.


Yeah, that's 'chinese boxing' and you never said chop suey movie actor boxers couldn't apply.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 28, 2015)

Zero said:


> Yeah, that's 'chinese boxing' and you never said chop suey movie actor boxers couldn't apply.



In any case, I think we've established that the one-inch punch is nothing more than a parlor trick.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 28, 2015)

The one inch punch shown in demos and like the video with BL is a parlor trick. However, it is the explosiveness, use of the elbow position, dropping of the wrist at the point of contact, and the fist to hip to foot alignment that is being shown but not seen. The punch is not used for striking as shown in the demo. But it does appear awesome to those who don't know. 
In the reality of a fight we've all seen the boxers jab do little damage, seen the jab cut badly, seen the jab knock out. The jab could do the same demo as 1 inch punch demo also. Doesn't mean anything until it strikes you.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2015)

Danny T said:


> The one inch punch shown in demos and like the video with BL is a parlor trick. However, it is the explosiveness, use of the elbow position, dropping of the wrist at the point of contact, and the fist to hip to foot alignment that is being shown but not seen. The punch is not used for striking as shown in the demo. But it does appear awesome to those who don't know.
> In the reality of a fight we've all seen the boxers jab do little damage, seen the jab cut badly, seen the jab knock out. The jab could do the same demo as 1 inch punch demo also. Doesn't mean anything until it strikes you.



But I also assume if we are being vaguely on topic that this is viable when someone is on top of you.

I mean if you can legitimately punch a guy three feet with it then striking off your back would work.

If it is more for show then it is more likely you will get elbowed to death if you are relying on it to save you.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 28, 2015)

drop bear said:


> But I also assume if we are being vaguely on topic that this is viable when someone is on top of you.
> 
> I mean if you can legitimately punch a guy three feet with it then striking off your back would work.


Possibility



drop bear said:


> If it is more for show then it is more likely you will get elbowed to death if you are relying on it to save you.


That is a possibility also.

If you have truly trained for any significant time vs another who is fully resisting and attacking you also know nothing works every time and sometimes the unusual works well.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Possibility
> 
> 
> That is a possibility also.
> ...



I focus on the techniques that work the most amount of times. So if my knee push escape works 10% of the time. And striking works 1% then I am going to suggest hitting that escape.

One method failing does not always validate the other method.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 28, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I focus on the techniques that work the most amount of times. So if my knee push escape works 10% of the time. And striking works 1% then I am going to suggest hitting that escape.


Ok.
I know a lot of people who throw the rt overhand and practice it a lot. Seldom works but when it does it is spectacular.



drop bear said:


> One method failing does not always validate the other method.


No one said so.


----------



## Zero (Jun 29, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> I know a lot of people who throw the rt overhand and practice it a lot. Seldom works but when it does it is spectacular.



Mighty Mo had the overhand punch down real well, used it all the time, even used in the same K1 tournament against consecutive opponents that knew it may be coming and to great effect. He clearly worked on this and had the timing down real well, as said, a kind of Hail Mary move, but it damn near produced a knock down or KO every time it connected.

Hits at 1:45, 2:32, 2:39 (the dude's face at 2:39 kind of tells you how it feels!!):


----------



## Zero (Jun 29, 2015)

QUOTE="Hanzou, post: 1713948, member: 31336"]In any case, I think we've established that the one-inch punch is nothing more than a parlor trick.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

There may be opportunities/situations were you can employ the technique in a real altercation, ie when someone is standing static in front of your simply hassling you (less or nil in a fight against a ready opponent) but in general, it's just a lot of fun to play with if you have the time and that's it.

I played around with this a lot on the side for a short while, on doors/cupboards/ mates and the old seeing how far you can shunt a tin can across the table etc.  I had this done to me by my sifu in WC for fun to good effect (but as noted, he had me standing flat footed straight on to him so my balance has heavily compromised and so any contact was going to send me backwards).

I am thinking about it but don't think this could be used very well from the ground when mounted, you could not twist/flick or engaged the hips or shift balance/weight through your arm, it would be simply just a shunt upwards from the arms/fist, I think...you'd have as much effect, or more, just doing limited upwards standard punches relying on triceps...I think...


----------



## Zero (Jun 29, 2015)

drop bear said:


> They are super secret other methods.
> 
> And I do mma.


You mean "UFC mma".


----------



## Crazy Eyes (Jun 29, 2015)

As someone who's been on the receiving end of a ground and pound more than once, I can attest to the near impossibility of punching someone on top of you.  You can, however, grab a hold of them, get them close, and bite off chunks of their face like a werewolf.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 30, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> As someone who's been on the receiving end of a ground and pound more than once, I can attest to the near impossibility of punching someone on top of you.  You can, however, grab a hold of them, get them close, and bite off chunks of their face like a werewolf.


yous werewolves are a hepatitis risk! plus how do you know your opponent will not do you with a silver shank?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 30, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> As someone who's been on the receiving end of a ground and pound more than once, I can attest to the near impossibility of punching someone on top of you.  You can, however, grab a hold of them, get them close, and bite off chunks of their face like a werewolf.



While in a life and death situation , I can see risking the exchange of blood with a bite. Yet it would not be my go to move. 
The grab and pull tight and attack other parts of them including the head is ok. 
Jabbing up with a spear like motion and or fist can get a shot in. Also if one does with w shrimp motion one can get some range and reaction. 
One can also hammer fist which is a gross motor skill and the body mechanics allow for that motion easily.


----------



## Crazy Eyes (Jun 30, 2015)

Jenna said:


> yous werewolves are a hepatitis risk! plus how do you know your opponent will not do you with a silver shank?


I realize you are just being facetious.  But realize, you are addressing a man who puts on a uniform and risks his life every single day.  That alone should be worth your respect.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jun 30, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> In any case, I think we've established that the one-inch punch is nothing more than a parlor trick.



To generate power to actually move someone from 1 inch away is impressive on its own; no one is claiming its a devastating strike or that it is superior to a striker's normal range. To call it a parlor trick is missing the point.... the point that it IS possible to generate short range power with practice and particular structure. There's no magic involved or secret techniques. I weigh 240 pounds and I have been pushed off my feet by people smaller than me, and have also been hit in the floating ribs by my teacher from inches only away hard enough that it shocked me.
Why is it not seen in MMA? Don't know, maybe it is; after all Alan Orr incorporates WC concepts into training fighters I hear. I don't follow fighters. In the end, some skills are more than just a technique you can put in your toolbox, they require training a certain way or altering your structure which might be foreign to the boxing / Muay Thai crowd, like 'round hole, square peg'.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> To generate power to actually move someone from 1 inch away is impressive on its own.


It doesn't take much power at all to move someone, if the angle is right, and they have no base.  Standing or on the mat, if you're moving to a dead angle where the other guy has no support, moving them is effortless, regardless of their size or weight.   Think about a four sided dice (picture below for anyone who didn't play D&D as a kid).  If you put your finger on the point at the top and try to roll that dice over a flat side, it's easy.  Over one of the points, it's much more difficult.  Same thing happens with people.  Moving to the dead angle, where they have no structure, it takes no effort at all to move them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 30, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> I realize you are just being facetious.  But realize, you are addressing a man who puts on a uniform and risks his life every single day.  That alone should be worth your respect.



Must be one hell of a scary mall you work in. How do the merchants stay in business while operating in what is (from what you've posted) a war zone. Do they all sell ammunition and body armor?


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2015)

One of our local malls actually has Segway scooters for the security guards.   It's hard not to make comparisons to Paul blart.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 30, 2015)

Steve said:


> One of our local malls actually has Segway scooters for the security guards.   It's hard not to make comparisons to Paul blart.



Do they use them in the halls? I'd think the risk of running into Gramps would be too high.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Do they use them in the halls? I'd think the risk of running into Gramps would be too high.


Yup.  They're pros.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sinthetik_mistik (Jun 30, 2015)

yeah once you're on the receiving end of ground'n'pound your pretty much f***ed.  There may be ways to wrestle your way out of one but I'm no BJJ expert


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 30, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> I realize you are just being facetious.  But realize, you are addressing a man who puts on a uniform and risks his life every single day.  That alone should be worth your respect.



What is this said uniform? 
A Clown Uniform? 
A Military Uniform?
A LEO Uniform?
A Health Specialist Uniform?
A Business Uniform? 
A Would you like Fries with that Uniform? 

Curious minds are interested


----------



## Crazy Eyes (Jun 30, 2015)

Rich Parsons said:


> What is this said uniform?
> A Clown Uniform?
> A Military Uniform?
> A LEO Uniform?
> ...


It's a security officer's uniform.  And it's one I've been proud to where for nearly a decade now.  Too many good men and woman have given their lives wearing it, so I suggest you use a little reverence instead of denigration.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> It's a security officer's uniform.  And it's one I've been proud to where for nearly a decade now.  Too many good men and woman have given their lives wearing it, so I suggest you use a little reverence instead of denigration.


 maybe something in between.   Reverence And denigration both seem a bit extreme.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka (Jun 30, 2015)

Working (professionally, for pay, as opposed to volunteering or to just chip in) in an milieu where you are designated as the person that handles "problems" coming from outside sources dealing with potential violence, victims, larceny, human behavior fueled by emotion, people influenced by controlled substances, alchohol or what-have-you, is a real pain in the ***. Hats off to everyone in the field. Stay safe.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 1, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> It's a security officer's uniform.  And it's one I've been proud to where for nearly a decade now.  Too many good men and woman have given their lives wearing it, so I suggest you use a little reverence instead of denigration.



DUDE!

BACK UP!

You insult people and me and want me to give you respect. WOW !?!

You have not asked about me, or my experience or maybe you know about it, because you have been here before? 

Give a little respect to those who ask questions and comment and maybe they will reply in kind. You may not have known I have done security work. I have been on the scene of accidents before the official first responders. I have had my rear end handed to me by gangs and survived being shot at (multiple times - as well as being held at gun point), stabbed, cut, hit by a car, hit by a truck, hit by a suburban, going through plate glass windows, tazers, golf clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, ... , keep the list going and people have probably used it against me. I have used improvised weapons as well. 

So take a step back, yourself and provide a little insight as to why you make your comments versus making strange comments and trying to sound bad *** and dangerous. Just present that data and let others recognize or comment on your condition or survival.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 1, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> I realize you are just being facetious.  But realize, you are addressing a man who puts on a uniform and risks his life every single day.  That alone should be worth your respect.




and you think you are the only one who wears a uniform and risks their lives? Respect is earnt you can't demand it just because you say you wear a uniform and risk your life, crossing some roads risks lives, what makes you so brave then?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 1, 2015)

Rich Parsons said:


> While in a life and death situation , I can see risking the exchange of blood with a bite. Yet it would not be my go to move.
> The grab and pull tight and attack other parts of them including the head is ok.
> Jabbing up with a spear like motion and or fist can get a shot in. Also if one does with w shrimp motion one can get some range and reaction.
> One can also hammer fist which is a gross motor skill and the body mechanics allow for that motion easily.



The issue you face is that space works to the advantage of the guy on top. If I am under a guy and getting blasted I want to pull him on me not push him off. And upward striking creates space.

So if you are going to fire off these strikes the space has to work to your advantage and not just firing off in the hope the guy on top will roll off or fall unconscious.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 1, 2015)

Rich Parsons said:


> What is this said uniform?
> A Clown Uniform?
> A Military Uniform?
> A LEO Uniform?
> ...



My hat is off to some of those who work fast food in dodgy areas. They have a tough job.


----------



## Buka (Jul 1, 2015)

Getting back to the original question, you don't have to punch.


----------



## Crazy Eyes (Jul 1, 2015)

Rich Parsons said:


> DUDE!
> 
> BACK UP!
> 
> ...


How have I insulted people???

All I've done is relate on the job experiences and asked people not disparge the uniform.  How is that insulting???


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 1, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> How have I insulted people???
> 
> All I've done is relate on the job experiences and asked people not disparge the uniform.  How is that insulting???





drop bear said:


> My hat is off to some of those who work fast food in dodgy areas. They have a tough job.




I don't know if you have them but here a lot of takeaway places deliver, the drivers often on mopeds are attacked regularly for the money. It's a scary job for not much money.


----------



## Crazy Eyes (Jul 1, 2015)

Buka said:


> Getting back to the original question, you don't have to punch.


That pic is awesome.


----------



## Hanzou (Jul 1, 2015)

sinthetik_mistik said:


> yeah once you're on the receiving end of ground'n'pound your pretty much f***ed.  There may be ways to wrestle your way out of one but I'm no BJJ expert



Even with Bjj, once someone is on top of you, you're in a lot of trouble. The mount is probably the most dominant position in MA, and it requires little skill to ground and pound from that position. The Gracies won many challenge matches by achieving the mount, and simply punching guys in the face. Heck, I see kids doing it to each other in those amateur fight videos, probably by watching MMA matches on youtube.

If you're a professional fighter used to someone being on top of you and hitting you in the face, you probably have the mental fortitude to weather the blows and trade punches like that guy in the video earlier in the thread. However, the simple reality is that the vast majority of people don't have that mental fortitude, and freak out once the fists and elbows start raining down. That mental breakdown gives the guy on top a massive advantage.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 1, 2015)

*In an exchange of strikes I would hate to be the guy on the bottom*.  Could I possibly hit someone from the bottom, sure.  Is it the optimal thing to attempt, absolutely not!  What is better is to expend my energy creating a situation where I can bump and roll the top
person and or create enough space to re-guard them.   I have personally witnessed some crazy things done that no one would ever advise so understand that there really are "no absolutes" and yet there are always better options.


----------



## Buka (Jul 1, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> That pic is awesome.



I am a Master Ken fanboy.


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2015)

Buka said:


> Getting back to the original question, you don't have to punch.


Funniest thing i've seen in a long time!!!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 1, 2015)

Steve said:


> Funniest thing i've seen in a long time!!!



That is just plain awesome!!!


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2015)

Grappling with a polar bear is just not a good idea.   Maybe the eye gouge is the best defense.   I somehow don't think the polar bear will be too quick to turn for the armbar.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 1, 2015)

New thread: who thinks they can effectively punch a polar bear?


----------



## Chrisoro (Jul 1, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> The _*BACK*_-mount is probably the most dominant position in MA



FTFY.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 1, 2015)

The Ultimate Polar Bear Competition.  One man, one polar bear = someone running and screaming! lol

your not a runner bear meme - Bing Images


----------



## Buka (Jul 1, 2015)

God, I love this place. I just do.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The issue you face is that space works to the advantage of the guy on top. If I am under a guy and getting blasted I want to pull him on me not push him off. And upward striking creates space.
> 
> So if you are going to fire off these strikes the space has to work to your advantage and not just firing off in the hope the guy on top will roll off or fall unconscious.




True. Yet I have struck a throat to create space and while they were going up they also posted their arm on me. This allowed for me to hip out with a wrist lock throw and roll them over and then I could work them over from their guard. 

As with anything in life it all depends upon what happens on that moment between those involved.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 1, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> It's a security officer's uniform. And it's one I've been proud to where for nearly a decade now. Too many good men and woman have given their lives wearing it, so I suggest you use a little reverence instead of denigration.





Crazy Eyes said:


> How have I insulted people???
> 
> All I've done is relate on the job experiences and asked people not disparge the uniform.  How is that insulting???



You make comments about fights and about knife attacks and you tell people to respect you and you do not respect others. 
There was no reference to a uniform even a security guard one before that point. And since you were being disrespectful in your comments before that I replied in kind. 

So yes you have insulted our members here, and to those who have seen conflict with your casual lack of respect in your responses. 

So reflect upon your negativity and realize what you provide to others you get back as well.


----------



## Zero (Jul 2, 2015)

Steve said:


> Grappling with a polar bear is just not a good idea.   Maybe the eye gouge is the best defense.   I somehow don't think the polar bear will be too quick to turn for the armbar.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is not advisable to try even bjj on a polar bear, there is a chance that going to ground in this instance may not work.  Not everyone on this website is trained to Master Ken's level.


----------



## Zero (Jul 2, 2015)

Crazy Eyes said:


> It's a security officer's uniform.  And it's one I've been proud to where for nearly a decade now.  Too many good men and woman have given their lives wearing it, so I suggest you use a little reverence instead of denigration.


Is that the same uniform which is passed on, or did you get a new one, which you haven't changed in the last ten years, when you signed up?


----------



## Buka (Jul 2, 2015)

When battling Polar Bears one should always wear a clean, white gi. Blend, baby, blend - be the bear.


----------



## Argus (Jul 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> New thread: who thinks they can effectively punch a polar bear?



I think I can!

I'll be wearing this, though, if you don't mind: 



Spoiler












And maybe this too: 



Spoiler


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 2, 2015)

Argus, I think you may need better equipment like this:

Evolution of the Bear Suit: Project Grizzly


----------



## Argus (Jul 2, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Argus, I think you may need better equipment like this:
> 
> Evolution of the Bear Suit: Project Grizzly



Well, the task was to punch the bear, not just waddle towards him


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 3, 2015)

Buka said:


> When battling Polar Bears one should always wear a clean, white gi. Blend, baby, blend - be the bear.


We will bear that in mind.


----------



## Hanzou (Jul 3, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> FTFY.



One on one, yes. However, in a street environment, being in top mount (or alternatively knee on belly) is better because you can quickly disengage and get out of dodge if conditions change. The back mount is a very entangled position to be in, especially if the person happens to roll on top of you.


----------



## Chrisoro (Jul 3, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> One on one, yes. However, in a street environment, being in top mount (or alternatively knee on belly) is better because you can quickly disengage and get out of dodge if conditions change. The back mount is a very entangled position to be in, especially if the person happens to roll on top of you.



Yes. But you were talking about the most dominant technique in martial arts, not the one that makes most sense in a self defense situation. The back mount is definitely a more_ dominant_ technique than the regular mount.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 4, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> *But you were talking about the most dominant technique in martial arts*


That's a bold statement


----------



## Chrisoro (Jul 4, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> That's a bold statement



_This is an italic one._


----------



## mograph (Jul 14, 2015)

I enjoy comparing the first and last pages of a long thread.


----------



## Steve (Jul 14, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Yes. But you were talking about the most dominant technique in martial arts, not the one that makes most sense in a self defense situation. The back mount is definitely a more_ dominant_ technique than the regular mount.


I have a couple of issues with this post, even as I appreciate the confidence with which it's stated. 

First, mount, whether back mount or top mount, are positions.  They aren't techniques.  Technique is how you transition to or from these positions, or how you attack or defend yourself while in these positions.  Passing guard is a technique.  Attacking the neck or shoulder is technique.  Being in the top mount or back mount is positional.

Second, how are you defining dominant?  I agree that back mount is a dominant position, but I don't agree that it's more dominant than top mount.  What's the rationale behind your "bold" statement?


----------



## Chrisoro (Jul 17, 2015)

Steve said:


> I have a couple of issues with this post, even as I appreciate the confidence with which it's stated.
> 
> First, mount, whether back mount or top mount, are positions.  They aren't techniques.  Technique is how you transition to or from these positions, or how you attack or defend yourself while in these positions.  Passing guard is a technique.  Attacking the neck or shoulder is technique.  Being in the top mount or back mount is positional.
> 
> Second, how are you defining dominant?  I agree that back mount is a dominant position, but I don't agree that it's more dominant than top mount.  What's the rationale behind your "bold" statement?



You are of course correct regarding the terminology, and I don't really know why I used the word "technique" the way I did in that post, especially  since I know better(having trained grappling since about 2006), and actually used the correct terminology in the previous post. Oh well, probably a result of a combination of the fact that english is not my primary language, and that I wrote the post on a phone while supposed to do something else. 

Regarding why I consider backmount more dominant than top mount, it has everything to do with options. The person mounted has far less options for defense and for improving his position when backmounted than when top mounted. At least from an self defense/MMA/Vale Tudo perspective.

Also, backmount has traditionally been considered the most dominant position in BJJ, according to at least two of the jiu jitsu books I have, if my memory serves me correct, with positions ranked as follows:


----------



## Buka (Jul 17, 2015)

I realize no position is hopeless, you keep fighting. But when mounted by a mounter more skilled, especially a savy, stronger opponent, it's akin to driving a convertible with the top stuck down - as a violent storm hits with thunder, lightning and a hard driving rain.

In a locked in back mount from a skilled opponent - it's akin to driving a convertible with the top stuck down - as a violent storm hits with thunder, ilightning and a hard driving rain - as you get in a _head on collision_ with a big fricken truck.


----------

