# tai chi ground fighting???



## taitsechien

does anyone know of youtube videos or otherwise that show tai chi ground fighting or any type of internal system going to the ground... not so much throws, but what to do from the ground...
thanks...


----------



## Andrew Green

taitsechien said:


> does anyone know of youtube videos or otherwise that show tai chi ground fighting or any type of internal system going to the ground... not so much throws, but what to do from the ground...
> thanks...




I don't think what you are looking for exists, and if it does I'd bet that it is a addition of the lats few years.


----------



## Formosa Neijia

taitsechien said:


> does anyone know of youtube videos or otherwise that show tai chi ground fighting or any type of internal system going to the ground... not so much throws, but what to do from the ground...
> thanks...



Yeah. IMA on the ground is called BJJ or judo. I highly suggest cross training one of them.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I have said more than once taiji standing up or laying down is still taiji but I have to agree with what has been posted. I do not think there is anything that is taiji ground fighting and if there is a video of it it is most likely a combination of Taiji and something like BJJ or just BJJ or something similar that someone called taiji.


----------



## jarrod

approaching this as a judo/jujitsu/sambo guy who has dabbled in tai chi, i have never come accross anything resembling tai chi specific groundfighting.  that said, much of what i learned in tai chi was very useful in grappling.  push hands helped my grip fighting.  the emphasis on circular motion helped my guard game.  focusing on staying rooted helped my throws as well as my ability to pin.  the principles of good fighting are the same, only the techniques change from style to style.  

jf


----------



## pete

city boys box, country boys rassle.  city streets hurt when you hit 'em. not like the country fields, pastures, or dirt roads.

tai chi chuan is a city art.


----------



## ggg214

never heard that taiji has techniques or even principles on ground fighting.

and may i ask : what is BJJ?


----------



## jarrod

bjj = brazilian jiu-jitsu


----------



## Kenkaku Knight

From what I learned in CMA, in a duel/challenge match, groundfighting never developed as an aspect of these arts.  When one fighter is standing while the other one is on his behind on the floor, that is already pretty humiliating.  Also, during a challenge match, if your opponent is on the ground, you do not join him.  You wait for him to get back up.  Now, I recognize this is the 21st century, and such formalities are, for the most part, thrown out the window.  But that is what I have been taught about why ground fighting pretty much does not exist in CMA.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh

The only CMAs I've heard of which address ground fighting are Monkey style, Grand Earth style (Di Tang Men) and Dog style. Good luck finding instruction in any of them.


----------



## jarrod

pete said:


> city boys box, country boys rassle. city streets hurt when you hit 'em. not like the country fields, pastures, or dirt roads.
> 
> tai chi chuan is a city art.


 
after thinking a bit, i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here.  judo's headquarters, the kodokan, is based out of tokyo.  pankration & the foundation of greco-roman wrestling developed in the greek city states.  bjj evolved in rio.  

city streets do hurt, but they tend to hurt more for the guy who doesn't know how to rassle.  

i think the more relevent issue is the general lack of groundfighting in cma's, as pointed out by randy & kenkaku.  probably an issue of formality, but i really don't know.  

here's a question for those of you who know more cma history than me: how much did china's empty-hand martial arts evolve on the battlefield against armoured opponents, rather than in the cities & monastaries against unarmoured attackers?  the reason i ask is because i have a theory that at least some grappling arts (jujitsu, pankration, wrestling) were first intended to be used against an opponent wearing armour.  it's a lot more difficult to effectively punch or kick a fully armoured opponent, whereas throws & joint locks could still be applied.  of course i could be way off base, & it may just be a cultural thing.  

jf


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bajiquan, Xingyiquan are both Chinese military arts as is Sanda today. Shaolin came form a monastery. Many other arts do not come from the military or monastery and were developed for non-armored fighting, Bagua for example was not a military art although it does have roots in Taoism.  

Taiji, if you believe the Chen family history, was developed in the countryside (in North China) not the city. And as to a previous statement about knocking someone down and the waiting for them to get up that is just plain fantasy, fighters trying to kill each other in old China were not that polite. CMA way of fighting uses Kicks and punches, Qinna and Shuaijiao in combination, if you are looking for something close to Jujitsu or ground fighting  in CMA you need to look at Shuaijiao and much of the idea there is to throw your opponent on the ground with great force so he does not get up. As for ground fighting it is NOT the be all end all of all fighting and CMA has a whole lot of little nasty things to counter it one of those being Qinna which is sometimes defined as muscle and tendon tearing.

Back to military arts like Xingyiquan, it has a plethora of weapons that it trained so going to the ground on a Chinese battle filed is a great way to  get yourself killed by a guy with a weapon or a horse or a chariot. 

I am terribly sorry but I am so sick and tired of this whole NEED for ground fighting thing I am not as nice as I should be here but I ABSOLUTLY GARUNTEE you if you try and take a real live CMA person (meaning properly trained and well trained) you are not guaranteed a victory, try that on my Taiji sifu and you may be surprised at what happens. Try that on someone with a lot of qinna training and it will get you hurt. And that is only a partial list of possibilities. Try that on jut about any well trained CMA person (and there are not as many as people think) it can get you hurt badly.

I personally have nothing against ground fighting, I think it can be a good tool in the tool box but it is not the be all end all of fighting, PARTICUALRLY outside of the ring and PARTICUALLARLY on an ancient Chinese battle field.


----------



## oxy

Xue Sheng said:


> I am terribly sorry but I am so sick and tired of this whole NEED for ground fighting thing
> .
> .
> .
> I personally have nothing against ground fighting, I think it can be a good tool in the tool box but it is not the be all end all of fighting, PARTICUALRLY outside of the ring and PARTICUALLARLY on an ancient Chinese battle field.




qft


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

> qft


 
Just wondering what that means.


----------



## mograph

Quantum Field Theory?

... or it may be "quoted for truth", which may be another way of saying ... "word".


----------



## jarrod

like i mentioned before, i am primarily a grappler & i happen to agree with 99% of what xue sheng.  

the problem is that all martial arts get shrouded in some form of ********, whether it's dodging bullets & throwing chi blasts (cma) or a 145lbs nerd who takes 3 bjj/wrestling/"cagefighting" lessons & can tap every blackbelt from any style (grappling).  

fighting is fighting, & there are a lot of ways to get good at hurting another human being.  

anyway, what i'm trying to get at is WHY groundfighting is largely absent from cma.  asking this does not imply that i think cma are incomplete or inferior just because i personally am more comfortable grappling.  i'm just theorizing about possible historical contexts that explain why china has produced little to no form of groundfighting, when it is so common in other countries.  

hopefully you didn't think i was bashing,

jf


----------



## Myrmidon

*Totally agree with your post, Xue Sheng...

Here's some Shuai Jiao:*


----------



## oxy

mograph said:


> Quantum Field Theory?
> 
> ... or it may be "quoted for truth", which may be another way of saying ... "word".



I searched google for "qft" to make sure it meant what I thought it meant too.


----------



## oxy

jarrod said:


> i'm just theorizing about possible historical contexts that explain why china has produced little to no form of groundfighting, when it is so common in other countries.



Is it THAT common in other countries? Throughout history?

My impression is that for most cultures throughout history, in the context of martial arts and warfare, being on the ground is as good as dead (for either the attacker or the defender). Many martial arts go further to say losing your balance is as good as dead (again for either attacker or defender).

It's more like there's an overemphasis today on groundfighting where you don't get penalized for staying on the ground too long. In the battle field, if you get into a wrestle hold with your opponent for even more than a second you're pretty much open to one hit kill shots.

Ancient Chinese warfare was quite different to other countries as well.

It was centred around the general. They rode in the front with pole weapons guiding the formation and also going around stabbing and chopping up people. A Chinese saying (at least from what I remember from the Three Kingdoms story) is that a good general is worth 10,000 foot soldiers.

There's not so much use for groundfighting when a guy riding a horse will decapitate you. But it's much better that you're standing up prepared for it rather than down on the ground with your opponent even if you're doing a ground and pound.


----------



## Xue Sheng

jarrod said:


> like i mentioned before, i am primarily a grappler & i happen to agree with 99% of what xue sheng.
> 
> the problem is that all martial arts get shrouded in some form of ********, whether it's dodging bullets & throwing chi blasts (cma) or a 145lbs nerd who takes 3 bjj/wrestling/"cagefighting" lessons & can tap every blackbelt from any style (grappling).
> 
> fighting is fighting, & there are a lot of ways to get good at hurting another human being.
> 
> anyway, what i'm trying to get at is WHY groundfighting is largely absent from cma. asking this does not imply that i think cma are incomplete or inferior just because i personally am more comfortable grappling. i'm just theorizing about possible historical contexts that explain why china has produced little to no form of groundfighting, when it is so common in other countries.
> 
> hopefully you didn't think i was bashing,
> 
> jf


 
Not upset, just tired of the whole "Search for Ground fighting thing" thing. And the whole "Ground fighters rule" arguements. But like I said I do think it is a good tool in the tool box.

Oxy pretty much explained why it is not there. There was no need for it and if you went to the ground in the early days of Chinese warfare it was very likely you were not getting up again.

But with that said there is ground fighting in some CMA (not so much the military styles) but it is not emphasized by many of the styles that train it, it is nothing special or any more important than kicking, punching or Qinna it is just another tool. And as I said if you want ground fighting there are CMA styles that are made for that, Shuaijiao is one and although I have never seen it I am told Dog boxing or fighting or something like that is another. 

If you look at Sanshou (Sanda) both sport and non-sport you will see Shuaijiao to varying degrees. Understand that many CMA styles are made to be trained and not be obvious about what the heck they are training. I referred to this in another post but in Chen style Buddha&#8217;s warrior attendant (Jin Gung Dao Dui) has about 8 different applications, all rather nasty and I doubt by looking and a Chen stylist doing that form that many could figure them all out. 

I believe it was Yang Jwing Ming that said Chinese Martial arts is made up of Kicking and punching, wrestling and Qinna. And you use (If someone else knows the correct order and I am wrong here please correct me) kicking and punching to fight qinna you use qinna to fight wrestling and wrestling to fight kicking and punching... or something like that


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

Thank you for the clarification.

 I thought maybe QFT=Quit from talking or worse!!
 Quit (four letter) talking. :uhyeah:


----------



## jarrod

oxy said:


> Is it THAT common in other countries? Throughout history?
> 
> My impression is that for most cultures throughout history, in the context of martial arts and warfare, being on the ground is as good as dead (for either the attacker or the defender). Many martial arts go further to say losing your balance is as good as dead (again for either attacker or defender).
> 
> It's more like there's an overemphasis today on groundfighting where you don't get penalized for staying on the ground too long. In the battle field, if you get into a wrestle hold with your opponent for even more than a second you're pretty much open to one hit kill shots.
> 
> Ancient Chinese warfare was quite different to other countries as well.
> 
> It was centred around the general. They rode in the front with pole weapons guiding the formation and also going around stabbing and chopping up people. A Chinese saying (at least from what I remember from the Three Kingdoms story) is that a good general is worth 10,000 foot soldiers.
> 
> There's not so much use for groundfighting when a guy riding a horse will decapitate you. But it's much better that you're standing up prepared for it rather than down on the ground with your opponent even if you're doing a ground and pound.


 
yup, that common, although most are folk-arts rather than military (jujitsu, pankration, & sambo being the first military grappling styles to come to mind).

you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england.  sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan.  one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name.  then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones.  so it is pretty common in other nations.

clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position.  however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed.  i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.  

rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.  

if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included.  once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.  

anyway, the initial statement that i took issue with is that striking/grappling followed an urban/rural division.  it appears to me that grappling as a military art developed in regions where one-on-one armoured combat was likely to take place.  since combat on the battlefield was strictly formational as you say, & one-on-one combat was typically unarmoured (making striking more effective), this may explain why groundfighting was never emphasized in china.  

thoughts?

jf


----------



## Bodhisattva

taitsechien said:


> does anyone know of youtube videos or otherwise that show tai chi ground fighting or any type of internal system going to the ground... not so much throws, but what to do from the ground...
> thanks...



I've never seen it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

jarrod said:


> yup, that common, although most are folk-arts rather than military (jujitsu, pankration, & sambo being the first military grappling styles to come to mind).
> 
> you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england. sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan. one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name. then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones. so it is pretty common in other nations.
> 
> clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position. however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed. i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.
> 
> rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.
> 
> if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included. once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.
> 
> anyway, the initial statement that i took issue with is that striking/grappling followed an urban/rural division. it appears to me that grappling as a military art developed in regions where one-on-one armoured combat was likely to take place. since combat on the battlefield was strictly formational as you say, & one-on-one combat was typically unarmoured (making striking more effective), this may explain why groundfighting was never emphasized in china.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> jf


 
OK last time Chinese wrestling, the oldest of all existing CMA styles today

Shuaijiao

jiao di (2697 BC)>Jiao li (between the twelfth and third century BCE) >Shuaijiao (the Goushu Institute of Nanjing in 1928)

You will find Shuaijiao to varying degrees in multiple CMA styles


----------



## Myrmidon

Xue Sheng said:


> OK last time Chinese wrestling, the oldest of all existing CMA styles today
> 
> Shuaijiao
> 
> jiao di (2697 BC)>Jiao li (between the twelfth and third century BCE) >Shuaijiao (the Goushu Institute of Nanjing in 1928)
> 
> You will find Shuaijiao to varying degrees in multiple CMA styles


*
Check the video in post #17*


----------



## Xue Sheng

Myrmidon said:


> Check the video in post #17


 
I did

Did you see this one? (turn the volume down before you play it, it is old and nothing but white noise.


Also 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwiIYRORHg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-XWRGeP5mY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTr87RE5nRI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8r2C5EvEc0&feature=related

Training
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyR5gIqgHC0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqQy-Ynz1zQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiBjfO2C3tU&feature=related

EDit

And here
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47414&highlight=shuaijiao


----------



## oxy

jarrod said:


> you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england.  sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan.  one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name.  then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones.  so it is pretty common in other nations.



As Xue Sheng says, Shuai Jiao.

What you're really asking, then, is why aren't all CMA jack-of-all-trades arts.



> clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position.  however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed.



Well, for one thing, a lot of the wrestling arts gives heavier people advantage. I guess the Chinese were a lot more interested in arts where weight isn't an advantage, hence the emphasis on stand up fighting. That's just one possible reason, not the only one of course.

And you have to consider that many Chinese martial arts are based on Chinese medicine theories where quick strikes to vital spots could end a fight. If people were allowed punches to the throat in wrestling competitions, you'd see a lot less wrestling.



> i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.
> 
> rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.



In Greco-Roman warfare, there were no generals riding around killing 3 or 4 people with one stroke of their incredibly heavy halberd. Also, there's the immense size of Chinese armies compared to anywhere else at the time.



> if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included.  once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.



Well, Chinese warfare was conducted on a scale at least 10 times greater than European warfare during those times. It was not uncommon to have armies of 100,000 per general fighting each other in one battle. Metal armour was scarce and the Chinese crossbow could easily penetrate metal armour anyway. So that was unnecessary weight. Given the lack of personal defences, then wrestling was just no use when another person can kill you with just an accidental hit of their sword.


----------



## jarrod

well now i think we're headed in the right direction.  i was aware of shuai jiao, what i did not know is that it is present in varying degrees in different styles of kung fu.  to someone with a only a passing knowledge of CMA (that's me)  it looked as if china produced one form of wrestling & hundreds of forms of striking.  i was asking about the disparity, & that has been answered.      

i put forward the theory that grappling as a MILITARY martial art developed in countries where there was at least some likelyhood of armour-wearing combatants facing each other one-on-one.  your information that chinese warfare did not emphasize single combat & that armour was seldom worn supports that theory, but of course there are other variables as you mentioned.  thanks for the information.

jf


----------



## oxy

jarrod said:


> i put forward the theory that grappling as a MILITARY martial art developed in countries where there was at least some likelyhood of armour-wearing combatants facing each other one-on-one.  your information that chinese warfare did not emphasize single combat & that armour was seldom worn supports that theory, but of course there are other variables as you mentioned.  thanks for the information.



I was being a bit too imprecise about the armour. This is just for if you're interested, otherwise you can just ignore it.

Chinese soldiers did wear armour, but it was mostly leather and copper mail which didn't cover most of the body. It protects from the minor accidental things. Heavier armour wasn't worth it due to, as I've said, crossbows and heavy pole weapons on horses as well as the cost.

There's more to this as well. The Chinese had been using combustibles in warfare way before the invention of gunpowder. The Tang and the Song, after the invention of gunpowder, had developed many explosive weapons. Grenades, flash bangs, bombs and guns among the most common. So Chinese hand to hand military combat had a few hundred years ahead of anywhere else where ground wrestling arts are simply too inefficient for the speed needed against modern weapons.

You can see how "modern" weapons like guns and rifles have changed "modern" warfare. There is almost no scope in today's warfare to do any wrestling and Chinese armies were fighting "today's" warfare for hundreds of years more than anywhere else.


----------



## jarrod

interesting stuff.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Remeber, one thing China has is people and a lot of them

Want an idea of the size of an ancient Chinese army. Just look at the number of terracotta soldiers found at the tomb of Chen Shi Wang Di and then know that is only a fraction of the size of his army. I believe there are about 7000 terracotta soldiers in the pit and that is only one of 3 maybe more pits. 

And, as Oxy mentioned the crossbow, the Qin Crossbow was capable of piercing the armor of the day. And we are talking from 221 BCE to 210 BCE for Qin. With the weapons they had and the number of horses and chariots running around a Qin battle field you really did not want to be on the ground and much of the rest of Chinese military history is the same.


----------



## Tez3

I think a lot of ground fighting/wrestling came less from a need for a fighting style in battle but more as a competitive type of fighting where basically men can show off their strength, agility and prowess to others. It had to be a useful skill though, you can read in many old stories about warriors challenging each other to wrestling matches, wrestling competitions being held between tribes etc. One of the joys of competing in MMA today is playing mental chess with your opponent, it's a game but with good training involved as well. Similiar I think to the javelin, hammer throwing etc in modern track events which would have been vital skills for warriors who could compete against each other to train. 
It would have been important to be able to demonstrate your power and strength but you couldn't always go round killing people! Wrestling is also a very good training exercise for other forms of warfare, one where the young men of the tribe could sort out their differences, bravery and character without too much damage being done. I think this is also why so much of regional wrestling is still popular and is probably seen as 'folk art' as one poster put it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> I think a lot of ground fighting/wrestling came less from a need for a fighting style in battle but more as a competitive type of fighting where basically men can show off their strength, agility and prowess to others. It had to be a useful skill though, you can read in many old stories about warriors challenging each other to wrestling matches, wrestling competitions being held between tribes etc. One of the joys of competing in MMA today is playing mental chess with your opponent, it's a game but with good training involved as well. Similiar I think to the javelin, hammer throwing etc in modern track events which would have been vital skills for warriors who could compete against each other to train.
> It would have been important to be able to demonstrate your power and strength but you couldn't always go round killing people! Wrestling is also a very good training exercise for other forms of warfare, one where the young men of the tribe could sort out their differences, bravery and character without too much damage being done. I think this is also why so much of regional wrestling is still popular and is probably seen as 'folk art' as one poster put it.


 
Good point look at Mongolian wrestling. The Mongols were not really know for wrestling on the battlefield they are better know for their horsemanship, archery and ferocity on the battlefield but wrestling is certainly a big part of their culture and used in competition.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Good point look at Mongolian wrestling. The Mongols were not really know for wrestling on the battlefield they are better know for their horsemanship, archery and ferocity on the battlefield but wrestling is certainly a big part of their culture and used in competition.


 
It was the Mongolians I was actually thinking about, having watched a programme about them the other day. Wrestling would suit them as training/exercise/game playing, they wouldn't have the time to do anything frivolous and it's suitably warlike.
I believe it's a similiar thing with the ancient Greeks who wrestled and boxed but went to war with spears, swords etc as well as horses. The Spartans taught both boys and girls to wrestle.
Plus wrestling/ground fighting is what we call here a 'bloke thing' lol, boys and men are very fond of giving each other a punch or two then grappling around. Friends do it all the time, I think it's a subtle dominance thing as with puppies and cubs 'playing' but trying to be the one in charge! It's why men find it easier to do martial arts than women initially. I imagine the Chinese were and are little different but it just doesn't get regarded as being a martial art.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> It was the Mongolians I was actually thinking about, having watched a programme about them the other day. Wrestling would suit them as training/exercise/game playing, they wouldn't have the time to do anything frivolous and it's suitably warlike.
> I believe it's a similiar thing with the ancient Greeks who wrestled and boxed but went to war with spears, swords etc as well as horses. The Spartans taught both boys and girls to wrestle.
> Plus wrestling/ground fighting is what we call here a 'bloke thing' lol, boys and men are very fond of giving each other a punch or two then grappling around. Friends do it all the time, I think it's a subtle dominance thing as with puppies and cubs 'playing' but trying to be the one in charge! It's why men find it easier to do martial arts than women initially. I imagine the Chinese were and are little different but it just doesn't get regarded as being a martial art.


 
And it was a Mongolian that won the men&#8217;s gold in Judo at the Olympics in Beijing. 

I will admit I was into a bit of wrestling as a kid and even trained some in High school but, and this may get me ion trouble, I never saw it as something I wanted to strive for in a fight. It was fun then and what I see in BJJ and MMA today is no doubt effective but I still do not see it as something I want to attempt to go for in a fight. But then this could be all my other MA background speaking too. I just may have to give this other stuff a try here soon to see what it&#8217;s all about


----------



## jarrod

Xue Sheng said:


> And it was a Mongolian that won the mens gold in Judo at the Olympics in Beijing.
> 
> I will admit I was into a bit of wrestling as a kid and even trained some in High school but, and this may get me ion trouble, I never saw it as something I wanted to strive for in a fight. It was fun then and what I see in BJJ and MMA today is no doubt effective but I still do not see it as something I want to attempt to go for in a fight. But then this could be all my other MA background speaking too. I just may have to give this other stuff a try here soon to see what its all about


 
my preference for grappling is just a personal preference; it just seems natural to me.  if i take a month off from striking (which i started in & still practice) i would come back incredibly rusty.  if i take a month off from grappling i usually come back a little sharper than before.  of course i've seen others who are just the opposite.  to each his own.  

regarding the mongolian judoka, i think he's also the national or world mongolian wrestling champion as well.

jf


----------



## oxy

jarrod said:


> my preference for grappling is just a personal preference; it just seems natural to me.  if i take a month off from striking (which i started in & still practice) i would come back incredibly rusty.  if i take a month off from grappling i usually come back a little sharper than before.  of course i've seen others who are just the opposite.  to each his own.



I'm a bit the same and I'm finding this out after beginning to spar with a friend from work, but I only do stand up grappling.

Was never really taught the grappling side of things in LHBF (my teacher has a preference for striking given his 7 star mantis training before). But I watched a few of Choi Wai Lun's videos and his grappling techniques for LHBF came naturally and effectively to me without having trained for it.


----------



## jarrod

forgive my ignorance, what's LHBF?  

stand up grappling is definately an underrated skill.  i would love to study some chin na when i get near a school.  

i was thinking about it a little more, & i think my proclivity for grappling also comes from the belief that it's never safe to assume that any technique will be a finishing move.  for example (& i'm just describing my personal tactics here) try to strike effectively enough to knock them out.  if they are still standing once you've moved in, try to throw them hard enough to knock them out.  if they are still a threat, remain standing & stomp, or follow to the ground & finish depending on the appropriate level of violence.  

in any case, the principles of effective fighting are basically the same no matter what range you are in.  if i'm pinning somebody, i'm still rooted to the earth, i just use that energy to crush my opponent.  if someone is stiff-arming me, i'm still using circles to get inside, just like with push hands.  the principles of CMA & various grappling styles really aren't all that different, they just have differnt external techniques & vocabulary.  

jf


----------



## mograph

LHBF = LiuHeBaFa or LokHupBaFa or some variations thereof.


----------



## jarrod

wow...i have so much to learn about CMA.  i have never even heard of that.  

jf


----------



## Xue Sheng

It is rare compared to other CMA styles

Liuhebafa

List of Chinese martial arts


----------



## oxy

jarrod said:


> wow...i have so much to learn about CMA.  i have never even heard of that.
> 
> jf



You and everyone else


----------



## bostonbomber

In order for a ground fighter to do his thing, he's got to get you on the ground first.  I think it would be difficult for anyone to take a skilled Tai Chi player to the ground, especially if you recognize your opponent is a ground fighter and understand what he is trying to do.  If you do end up on the ground, the Tai Chi principles you use on your feet also apply on the ground.  You can try cross-training in BJJ, but if you primarily do Tai Chi, how are you going to stack up against someone that does ground fighting exclusively?


----------



## kaizasosei

taichi takes place within the body.  therefore, the outside form does not matter as much as most would believe.  standing or lying or kneeling.   all of life, all movements and all phenomena are a type of taichi.

j


----------



## Laoshi77

bostonbomber said:


> In order for a ground fighter to do his thing, he's got to get you on the ground first. I think it would be difficult for anyone to take a skilled Tai Chi player to the ground, especially if you recognize your opponent is a ground fighter and understand what he is trying to do. If you do end up on the ground, the Tai Chi principles you use on your feet also apply on the ground. You can try cross-training in BJJ, but if you primarily do Tai Chi, how are you going to stack up against someone that does ground fighting exclusively?


 
I do genuinely believe this to be true, Taijiquan fundamentally is designed on developing great balance and a good teacher should have their students trying to unbalance each other. I also think that Taijiquan has the perfect answers for the attacks of the grappler and I have tried this repeatedly with friends, it works because it is so subtle in that even the slightest movement is the answer to the grappler's attacks. What is more natural than the simplest movement of shifting your weight or even 'repulse monkey'?

BJJ and grappling arts are designed to ground an opponent which is not as easy as it sounds when fighting a decent Taijiquan (or internal) martial artist. Martial artists with the mindset of the grappler only think it is easy due to what the medium is telling you!


----------



## oxy

Laoshi77 said:


> BJJ and grappling arts are designed to ground an opponent which is not as easy as it sounds when fighting a decent Taijiquan (or internal) martial artist.



Never mind Taiji. It's actually not so easy to ground an opponent very skilled in striking arts either.


----------



## Xue Sheng

oxy said:


> Never mind Taiji. It's actually not so easy to ground an opponent very skilled in striking arts either.


 
You mean you don't think it is easy to grab a guy attacking with Tong Bei or coming at you with one of those windmill style white crane or Chungquan attacks


----------



## Laoshi77

oxy said:


> Never mind Taiji. It's actually not so easy to ground an opponent very skilled in striking arts either.



Very true, the cage and sports fighting are designed for the grappler in fairness.


----------



## jarrod

Laoshi77 said:


> Very true, the cage and sports fighting are designed for the grappler in fairness.


 
it's designed for the fighter who can adapt to the rules.  often a striker with minimal ground skills can stall out for a stand up.  

jf


----------



## Laoshi77

jarrod said:


> it's designed for the fighter who can adapt to the rules.  often a striker with minimal ground skills can stall out for a stand up.
> 
> jf



Rules of course are important in that context, but not so much in the scenario of what this thread is reasoning. However, on the other hand we are gradually seeing a shift from there being too much focus on groundwork.

What do you mean by: "often a striker with minimal ground skills can stall out for a stand up."? Is it that they can hold on and wait for the ref to call them to stand? 
Being on the wrong side of a mount is naturally not a good place for anyone, but the rules do inhibit natural and very painful responses (techniques), wouldn't you agree?

Does anyone agree that 'Fa Jing' will help one escape from most locks and holds?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Laoshi77 said:


> Does anyone agree that 'Fa Jing' will help one escape from most locks and holds?


 
It depends on the lock and the skill of the person applying the lock.


----------



## oxy

Xue Sheng said:


> You mean you don't think it is easy to grab a guy attacking with Tong Bei or coming at you with one of those windmill style white crane or Chungquan attacks



I don't know about grabbing windmill attacks. For one, I'm not under the illusion that they're actually giants that I have to defeat.

Actually, I find the whole praying mantis hook hands quite useful for getting in the way of the opponent's arm movements which makes it more easier to set up grappling against a good striker. It's even better with the whole LHBF vertical circular blocking.


----------



## oxy

Laoshi77 said:


> Does anyone agree that 'Fa Jing' will help one escape from most locks and holds?



I find there are two factors that makes a hold/lock much harder for an opponent to pull off. At least for arm and hand locks.

First is elbows down. Second is to try and avoid being grabbed at the wrist.

I personally don't think it's a good idea to fa jing out of locks and holds. An opponent good at listening will be able to use that fa jing moment and redirect that force into making your arm bend unnaturally and making the lock easier. Especially if they've got the wrist and elbow covered.


----------



## jarrod

Laoshi77 said:


> Rules of course are important in that context, but not so much in the scenario of what this thread is reasoning. However, on the other hand we are gradually seeing a shift from there being too much focus on groundwork.


 
trends in mma tend to be cyclical.  when coleman came on the scene, bjj was dead & ground & pound was king.  then maurice smith figured out some take down defense & a little guard, & strikers were back in the game.  brazilain top team picked up some takedown skills & brought back bjj.  it all goes round & round.  



Laoshi77 said:


> What do you mean by: "often a striker with minimal ground skills can stall out for a stand up."? Is it that they can hold on and wait for the ref to call them to stand?


 
yup, it can be really hard to submit a sweaty opponent who is just focused on surviving.  lot's of guys are getting their black belts in ref-stan-do.





Laoshi77 said:


> Being on the wrong side of a mount is naturally not a good place for anyone, but the rules do inhibit natural and very painful responses (techniques), wouldn't you agree?


 
i disagree.  i don't know what specific techniques you are referring to, but usually when people mention something like this, they are talking about groin & eye attacks.  people often don't realize that there is no magical formula that prevents grapplers from using these techniques as well.  if the man on top mount is using a low-mount, his groin is protected & he has equal access to his opponent's eyes.  if he is using high-mount, his eyes are out of range while he can reach the bottom man's eyes.  any attack on the top man's groin by the bottom man leaves his face open, plus puts his arms in position for a submission.  so-called dirty fighting techniques are useful, but they are not usually a short cut for defeating superior position.

jf


----------



## Laoshi77

jarrod said:


> lot's of guys are getting their black belts in ref-stan-do.


 
That's funny!



jarrod said:


> i disagree. i don't know what specific techniques you are referring to, but usually when people mention something like this, they are talking about groin & eye attacks. people often don't realize that there is no magical formula that prevents grapplers from using these techniques as well. if the man on top mount is using a low-mount, his groin is protected & he has equal access to his opponent's eyes. if he is using high-mount, his eyes are out of range while he can reach the bottom man's eyes. any attack on the top man's groin by the bottom man leaves his face open, plus puts his arms in position for a submission. so-called dirty fighting techniques are useful, but they are not usually a short cut for defeating superior position.


 
True to an extent but I guess when you are in the sports environment most martial artists are hindered due to the rules categorising certain techniques as illegal. Of course in the street the grappler can use these techniques too which is stating the obvious.
However to get back to the nature of this thread firstly, the purpose of Taijiquan is pretty much to be evasive which results in being virtually 'not there' when an opponent grabs or tries to floor you. I'm sure that might sound odd or even mystical to some but honestly, try and grab an experienced Taijiquan practitoner and you will understand that you are trying to grab water i.e. practically impossible.
Secondly, the philosophy of 'ground and pound' is really alien to Taijiquan although nobody will be comfortable in that position. There are still many principles which can be taken into the ground scenario such as counter-balance and leverage which are both qualities that are common in both BJJ and Taijiquan.
Thirdly, as has been said it would be practically impossible to floor a good Taiji exponent as balance and elusiveness are key to being proficient in this style. I understand that might seem arrogant but I guess that's why Taijiquan is often translated as 'Ultimate Fist Style'. Remember Taijiquan features many aspects of Shuai Jiao and Qin Na so grappling is a major part of the system.

Peace.


----------



## jarrod

i understand what you're saying & agree to a large extent; i've trained just a tiny bit of tai chi & have enourmous respect for it.  i have also sparred with some well respected tai chi practicioners & not had trouble grounding them once i'm able to get my range.  getting into that range is often the difficulty, but a well-rounded grappler will spend a lot of time learning how to get there.  as usual, it really comes down to the exponent of each style. 

jf


----------



## Laoshi77

jarrod said:


> i have also sparred with some well respected tai chi practicioners & not had trouble grounding them once i'm able to get my range.  *getting into that range is often the difficulty, *
> 
> jf



Yes that's it precisely. One always is more comfortable in a certain range; and this fits with what you say about finding your range. I think this is key to Taijiquan in that the practitioner tries to be elusive and not necessarily attack the opponent.
Of course this is another reason why you would never see the fight between a BJJ person and Taiji person (in a sport environment) as attack is not the primary focus.

Thanks for your responses, very informative. I did read another of your comments somewhere which stated how you felt Taiji could help the grappler in learning the subtle nature of contact, or words to that effect (I can't recite what you said exactly).


----------

