# Grappling Defense



## 7starmantis (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm curious as to how a trained grappler would deal with some different situations.
I'll try to explain as best I can:

Often times a grappler is going to find an opening and (forgive me for my ignorance of grappling terms) "lunge" for the lower legs and shins, leading with the shoulder, in order to take the opponent down. Make sense so far? 

Ok, so how would a grappler who initiates that movement deal with the opponent yielding backwards with the lunge, so as to take the feet further out behind the grappler, and applying an elbow downwards to the back of the head of the grappler?

Does that situation make sense? I hope I explained it properly enough. I'm just curious.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Oct 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I'm curious as to how a trained grappler would deal with some different situations.
> I'll try to explain as best I can:
> 
> ...



To start off, yes, this makes sence and yes you explained it properly.  I'll give 2 examples.  Wrestlers practice the double leg and single leg takedowns all the time.  Afterall, its one of their signature moves.  If you've watched any of the UFC or other NHB fights, and have seen wrestlers such as Mark Coleman and Mark Kerr, you will notice how quickly they execute this move.  Even if they do not get both legs, they can still continue forward with a walking motion from the knees to hook one of their feet behind the others leg and continue the takedown.  

On the other end of the coin, you have Royce Gracie.  Watch his fights and you'll see what appears to be a front kick that he is throwing.  In reality, it is not a front kick, but more of a probe.  He is using this kick to guage his distance.  Watch the reaction of the opponent.  What does he do??  He moves back to avoid the "kick", and while doing this, he is also sliding back, leaning forward and off balancing himself.  Gracie is then able to move in for the takedown.  

Now, for the elbow to the head.  Sure, it might be possible.  If you watch the fights, you'll notice that in some cases the person doing the shooting, does take a few hits, but its usually nothing that is going to KO him.  A counter to the double/single takedown is the sprawl.  From this position, the person sprawling, has his body weight of the other person, preventing him from continuing the move.

Sorry for the long reply.  I hope it shed some light on your question! 

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *I'm curious as to how a trained grappler would deal with some different situations.
> I'll try to explain as best I can:
> 
> ...


 First of all that defense you just described is called a sprawl. It is a grappling counter. If a grappler dives under a sprawl I suppose he deserves what he got because he forgot to poke you in the eye or what ever so he could beat you to the leg before you took it away. Another counter you might try is to let the guy get your leg(as if you had a choice) and run your forarm across his face into a head and neck crank.
Sean


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2003)

What about the arts that practice alot of yielding, seems when the leg takedown is executed they could ield out (to the side) and let the "shooter" just go by the side on their own momentum.

Do you guys practice these types of counters and all as well?

7sm


----------



## MJS (Nov 1, 2003)

Any type of counter is possible, however it just being able to do it quick enough.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2003)

So in systems like bjj do you guys practice any strikes and kicks or is it pretty much on the ground type training?

7sm


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *So in systems like bjj do you guys practice any strikes and kicks or is it pretty much on the ground type training?
> 
> 7sm *


When our Boise guys train for the val Tudos, if the guy is open you punch him in the face, then work Bjj.


----------



## KanoLives (Nov 16, 2003)

I was practicing the sprawl in class the other day. Great defense against the shoot. The guy I was practicing against was bigger than me and he shot me with a full head of steam. Now he didn't realize I had sprawled and kept tryin' to take me down. I simply came under his neck and slapped him in a guillotine(sp?) choke. Now because I new he was bigger and could probablly pick me up over his back I countered that by falling on my back while keeping him in the choke. He tapped pretty much as soon as my back hit the floor. The art I study teaches side step defenses against the shoot and other such techs. Fact of the matter is unless you're trully fast to react, as mentioned above, I don't think these defenses are practical. I'd go with the sprawl any day. 

:asian:


----------



## JDenz (Nov 18, 2003)

The only time you would hit a wrestler with an elbow from your feet like that is if he was tired or you have taken his legs away from him in a real fight.   There are a couple real basic things that you can do to counter a good sprawl.  One is to turn the corner, When a guy sprawls on you you pivit on your hips (kinda hard to explain but basicly you are moving out of the way so he falls on his face and you use his movement to take his back.  The second is a reshoot. When the guy sprawls on you you just shoot agian so you can get your hips under his.  If you want to see the way to beat a shoot watch Mirko Crocrop he has a very good sprawl and strikes very well.  I personally think the best way to beat a wrestler is let them shoot on one leg sprawl and continue to strike, unfortinitly I haven't met to many non wrestlers who can do it to wrestlers.


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *First of all that defense you just described is called a sprawl. It is a grappling counter. If a grappler dives under a sprawl I suppose he deserves what he got because he forgot to poke you in the eye or what ever so he could beat you to the leg before you took it away. Another counter you might try is to let the guy get your leg(as if you had a choice) and run your forarm across his face into a head and neck crank.
> Sean *



Let me sound a note of caution about all this "sprawl, sprawl" talk. Unless you are already a pretty darn good grappler, you are fooling yourself if you think you can sprawl at will. Its not that simple, as someone here has already pointed out very well. I don't think its a good idea to practice sprawling against some not-so-hot-at-grapplin' classmates and think you've got it covered.  As for side-stepping; that is exceedingly unlikely unless the guy shooting is half-dead or drunk. Don't get me started on "poke in the eye"...


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *Let me sound a note of caution about all this "sprawl, sprawl" talk. Unless you are already a pretty darn good grappler, you are fooling yourself if you think you can sprawl at will. Its not that simple, as someone here has already pointed out very well. I don't think its a good idea to practice sprawling against some not-so-hot-at-grapplin' classmates and think you've got it covered.  As for side-stepping; that is exceedingly unlikely unless the guy shooting is half-dead or drunk. Don't get me started on "poke in the eye"... *



Well, just like anything, be it your stand up fighting or your ground work, it will take considerable time to really be good at these moves.  

Mike


----------



## KanoLives (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *Let me sound a note of caution about all this "sprawl, sprawl" talk. Unless you are already a pretty darn good grappler, you are fooling yourself if you think you can sprawl at will. Its not that simple, as someone here has already pointed out very well. I don't think its a good idea to practice sprawling against some not-so-hot-at-grapplin' classmates and think you've got it covered.  As for side-stepping; that is exceedingly unlikely unless the guy shooting is half-dead or drunk. Don't get me started on "poke in the eye"... *



I have to disagree with the idea that you cannot sprawl at will. If this is the defense you know you are going to use against a take down, shoot, etc. Why couldn't you attempt it? Just curious to your reasoning. BTW I'm assuming that if someone is shooting in on ya then you have already been made aware that it was go time prior to the attempted shoot, take down, whatever. I mention this because.....well it's go time....time to be ready for anything as best you could. 

As for the sprawl working after that......well that's up to the practitioner and his knowledge, skills, etc. 

:asian:


----------



## JDenz (Dec 9, 2003)

Lol you are talking about something that is easy to say and hard to do.


----------



## KanoLives (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by JDenz _
> *Lol you are talking about something that is easy to say and hard to do. *



Maybe....but what's so hard about it? Just tryin to understand. My take on it was not if the sprawl works or doesn't work, rather, wether a person could do it at will. Wether it works or not is a whole different ball game with to many "what if" and variables. But the question remains, why couldn't someone attempt a sprawl at will?

:asian:


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KanoLives _
> *I have to disagree with the idea that you cannot sprawl at will. If this is the defense you know you are going to use against a take down, shoot, etc. Why couldn't you attempt it? Just curious to your reasoning. BTW I'm assuming that if someone is shooting in on ya then you have already been made aware that it was go time prior to the attempted shoot, take down, whatever. I mention this because.....well it's go time....time to be ready for anything as best you could.
> 
> As for the sprawl working after that......well that's up to the practitioner and his knowledge, skills, etc.
> ...



The point was to sound a note of caution against the misconception that people could practice a few sprawls against their non-grappler classmates and feel in any way confident that they won't be taken down. 

That's asking for trouble.


----------



## chaosomega (Dec 9, 2003)

That's why I train with a freestyle wrestler for takedowns and takedown defence (sprawls, whizzers, etc...) She rocks!


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chaosomega _
> *That's why I train with a freestyle wrestler for takedowns and takedown defence (sprawls, whizzers, etc...) She rocks! *



I hope "she" is a stronger than average woman


----------



## chaosomega (Dec 11, 2003)

"She" Doesn't need to be. Her skills more than make up for it. She trains with guys on her wrestling team all the time, anyway.


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chaosomega _
> *"She" Doesn't need to be. Her skills more than make up for it. She trains with guys on her wrestling team all the time, anyway. *




I see. So, its good training for her but not so much for everyone else.


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *I see. So, its good training for her but not so much for everyone else. *



Maybe I'm wrong, and I just might be, but that comment leads me to believe that you dont think that you can learn anything by training with a female grappler??  Chaos said it best, it doesnt matter how strong the person is, its the tech. that counts.  Again, I'll use this example.  Look at Helio Gracie.  Now, hes not the biggest and strongest man out there, but his skill and tech. is 100 times better than most of the huge guys out there.  Why? Due to him being so small, he needed to adjust the techs. to work for him, the same way his son Royce has done.

Mike


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *  Chaos said it best, it doesnt matter how strong the person is, its the tech. that counts.   *



that's something weak people like to say...

don't bring up the gracie, gracie thing as 'proof'. they are still tough, strong men who happen to be very very skilled. there is a difference


----------



## MJS (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *that's something weak people like to say...
> 
> don't bring up the gracie, gracie thing as 'proof'. they are still tough, strong men who happen to be very very skilled. there is a difference *



First off, are you calling me weak??  If so, you need to get a clue, because it has been proven time and time again, that its tech. not size that matters.  Second, I will bring up the Gracie thing, becuase it is true.  Its happened to more people than just Gracie.  Vitor Belfort beat Scott Ferrozzo, who greatly out weighed him.  Ruas beat Paul Varleans.

Dude, you need to re-read my post.  I never said that the Gracies were weak.  I said, that that compared to some of the people whom they have fought, there has been a huge size difference.  Sure, Royce and Tank are about the same height, but a huge difference in weight and strength.

Maybe you should know a little about grappling before you make comments like that.

Mike


----------



## JDenz (Dec 11, 2003)

Ya skill does mean alot.


----------



## psi_radar (Dec 11, 2003)

I've played around with this a bit with my instructor. Knowing your opponent and their fighting style will affect how effective a takedown or a sprawl will be. Stand up fighters, and I'm speakng from a Kenpoist point of view, have a slight disadvantage in executing the sprawl since their posture is so upright. When I wrestled, it was a lot faster to sprawl from my already bent position onto my opponent rather than when I try it now from a neutral fighting stance. 

That said, if you're opponent knows it's coming, that time differential can be overcome by using a little anticipation. I only was successful a few times in wrapping my instructor's legs and taking him down once he knew what I was up to. Plus, he was being really nice and not punting my head on the way in, or crushing my spine with an elbow. Granted, I'm not as fast on my takedowns as I used to be, but I still felt incredibly vulnerable to strikes as I shot in. I think the sprawl + an elbow is a devastating defense if you've practiced enough to match the speed of the grappler.


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *First off, are you calling me weak??  If so, you need to get a clue, because it has been proven time and time again, that its tech. not size that matters.   I never said that the Gracies were weak. Maybe you should know a little about grappling before you make comments like that.
> 
> Mike *



A) wtf? I didn't call you weak, but you are displaying a weak mind...

B) My point was, and is, that the fantasy that technique can somehow negate the advantage of size and strength is a dangerous one. I hope you find out the hard way...

C) I don't know your grappling background and you don't know mine, so I guess I'm being presumptuous in believing that I have forgotten more about grappling than you are ever likely to know


----------



## JDenz (Dec 11, 2003)

wow a little anger


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> 
> 
> > *A) wtf? I didn't call you weak, but you are displaying a weak mind...*
> ...


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> * Let me give you an example my friend.  My current BJJ Inst. is about 5'10, 155 lbs.  I'm 5'10 200 lbs.
> Yup, you're right. I dont know your background.  Would you care to share it with us??  I'll give you mine.  I've been grappling for over 10yrs.  I have had instruction from a good friend that was a wrestler in high school and college.
> *



First of all, any school child knows that anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing more than personal experience. So get that straight.

Next, if you had bothered to read, you would see that nowhere did I state or imply that technique is not important (of course). 

Obviously, if the difference between two parties in terms of technique is enormous, that will be a key influence in the outcome. Just as if the difference between two parties in terms of strength and size is enormous, that will be a key influence in the outcome. When the differences between opponents narrows, the influence of size and strength (or technique) plays an ever more significant role. That is why there are weight classes in wrestling, which I was actively involved in at a highly competitive level for 20 years.


----------



## MJS (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _B) My point was, and is, that the fantasy that technique can somehow negate the advantage of size and strength is a dangerous one. I hope you find out the hard way...



If you fail to see that it has been proven by the Gracies many times, then thats your problem.



> Next, if you had bothered to read, you would see that nowhere did I state or imply that technique is not important (of course).





> B) My point was, and is, that the fantasy that technique can somehow negate the advantage of size and strength is a dangerous one. I hope you find out the hard way...



This above quote from you sounds like it to me.  




> Obviously, if the difference between two parties in terms of technique is enormous, that will be a key influence in the outcome. Just as if the difference between two parties in terms of strength and size is enormous, that will be a key influence in the outcome. When the differences between opponents narrows, the influence of size and strength (or technique) plays an ever more significant role. That is why there are weight classes in wrestling, which I was actively involved in at a highly competitive level for 20 years. [/B]



Yes, there are weight classes in wrestling, so of course that would apply.  However in wrestling, there are no submissions, only pins, which is why they rely on strength so much.  If you watch the first few UFC, you'll notice that there were no weight classes, and Gracie defeated guys much bigger and stronger.  Take Dan Severn for example.  He was a wrestler, had no submission skills.  Sure the fight went on for 30+ min.  But who won? Gracie.  Why?  He used tech., waited until Severn made a mistake and took advantage of it.  

Comparing wrestling to BJJ is like comparing an apple to an orange.  They are both fruits, but they taste different.  Wrestling and BJJ are both grappling arts, but they taste different too.

Mike


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

is anyone else sensing quite a bit of ego in this thread?


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *
> Yes, there are weight classes in wrestling, so of course that would apply.  However in wrestling, there are no submissions, only pins, which is why they rely on strength so much.  If you watch the first few UFC, you'll notice that there were no weight classes, and Gracie defeated guys much bigger and stronger.   *



So your argument rests on your adulation of the gracies, who you consider puny and weak?


----------



## JDenz (Dec 12, 2003)

Ya both people are pushing there arguements to the extreme they are both right though.  Extreme strength can be overwealming look at Coleman and Sapp.   For tecnique you can look to Royce, Newton, Sperry.  
      I think that the skill level is a hundred times what it was back in the day when you had Royce beating on the helpless strong guys with no skill.  Strength plays such an important part in fighting now.  Guys like Hughes would eat Royce alive now a days.  Grappling is elvolving so much and every tournament it gets better.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chinkoobake _
> *So your argument rests on your adulation of the gracies, who you consider puny and weak? *



Show me ANYWHERE in my posts that I said the above comment???  I have never said that they are puny and weak...YOU did.  If you compare them to guys like Coleman, Kerr, Baroni, who are all juiced up, then yeah, how can you say that Gracie is bigger and stronger than them?  Those guys are relying on that to win their fights.  Royce is strong, but he doesnt look like those guys does he?  There is a huge difference in the way those guys fight compared to Royce.

Again, please do not put words into my mouth.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by JDenz _
> *Ya both people are pushing there arguements to the extreme they are both right though.  Extreme strength can be overwealming look at Coleman and Sapp.   For tecnique you can look to Royce, Newton, Sperry.
> I think that the skill level is a hundred times what it was back in the day when you had Royce beating on the helpless strong guys with no skill.  Strength plays such an important part in fighting now.  Guys like Hughes would eat Royce alive now a days.  Grappling is elvolving so much and every tournament it gets better. *



So, do you think that Huges would eat Sperry alive also?  People mistake guys like Sapp, as having good tech.  Sure, dont get me wrong, the guy is definately jacked, but he is going to rely 100% on his size to beat the person into submission.  If what you're saying is true, then let me ask you this.  Why study ANY MA, if the mear size and strength of your opp. is going to determine the outcome?  If that was the case, then there would be no arts, cuz all you'd need to defeat your opp. was to just be bigger than them.  Would you also say that guys like Sapp, Coleman, Kerr, and Huges would also eat Rickson alive??  Now, he's nowhere as big as Sapp.  He is still strong, but its obvious, or at least should be to anyone, that there is a huge difference there.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *is anyone else sensing quite a bit of ego in this thread? *



No offense, but I really dont see any more "ego" as I do in any of the other threads.  Look at some of the Kenpo threads.  Especially the ones back in the day when Clyde would post.  

The debate here, is concerning size vs. strength.  Of course its going to be hard for someone who comes from an art such as wrestling, where you need to rely on strength to realize that arts like BJJ are more tech. based.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2003)

Here is another good comparison.  Look at Kimo.  Now when this guy first came into the NHB fights, he was a brawler.  Look at when he fought Royce in UFC 3.  IMO, he didnt show any tech. he showed how to brawl, period.  What was the outcome? Sure Royce won, but he was unable to continue.  The fact remains that he still used tech. to beat his opp.  Now, look at Kimo today.  He trains with one of the best BJJ guys around, Joe Morera (sp)  His skill level went up 100%!  Look at his fight with Tank.  He stayed relaxed, took him down and submitted him with a choke.  Kimo is a big guy, but its very apparent to me that he is using more tech. in his fights now, than when he first entered the ring.

Mike


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *
> 
> Again, please do not put words into my mouth.
> ...



I'm sure your mouth is too full of graciballs to fit anything else.


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *Show me ANYWHERE in my posts that I said the above comment???  I have never said that they are puny and weak...YOU did.   *



If you claim that strength and toughness had nothing to do with their victories, what else is to be inferred?


----------



## chinkoobake (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> * Of course its going to be hard for someone who comes from an art such as wrestling, where you need to rely on strength to realize that arts like BJJ are more tech. based.
> 
> *




I hope you know more about bjj than you do about wrestling!


----------



## JDenz (Dec 13, 2003)

No I think that Sperry would beat hughes because he is bigger and stronger and alot more well rounded then Royce.  I think Sperry would beat Royce.    I am saying that alot of strength can overcome technique.  Look at Sapp he was about three inches from literaly killing Nog who is probley the most tecniqual fighter at heavey weight.   Same thing goes in the street if you are about 150 pounds and you fight a guy about 350 and he can knock you out in one punch but you are alot faster and can get in and out on him and hit him.  Which is better?  Who is going to win?  Who knows if you fight a perfect fight and chop him down you win if you slip on some loose gravel miss a parry and he knocks you out you lose.  Which is better depends on your views.  I don't think you can really argue about that.


----------



## chaosomega (Dec 13, 2003)

Whoa... that was interesting. I was gonna argue some points, but looks like MJS did it all for me! Anywho... If I wrestled with this girl, she's whoop my sorry a$$. But if she tried my sport with me, she'd get her a$$ whooped, even if it was just sumbission wrestling.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, that sure was an interesting little debate.!LOL!  Oh well, our friends account was closed, so fortunately we wont have to listen to him anymore!  

Mike


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2003)

The account was closed at the user's request in response to suspension of the account by the Admin Team.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## JDenz (Dec 14, 2003)

Well maybe we can get back to the topic then.  Lol besides it is always cool watching people get in flame wars lol.


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2003)

I second that!! I'm ready to get back to the topic!

Mike


----------



## JDenz (Dec 16, 2003)

It is almost impossable to catch an elbow to the back of the head agianst a shot to.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by JDenz _
> *It is almost impossable to catch an elbow to the back of the head agianst a shot to. *



How so? If an attacker is coming in on me, and I yield out backwards, putting space bewteen me nad the attacker, coming down with an elbow to the skull is very possible, wouldn't it be?

7sm


----------



## JDenz (Dec 23, 2003)

Not really because a good shot is coming in low so his head will be under your waist level depending on height diffrence.  I don't see any way you can hit him with an elbow on the way down.  Maybe if you sprawled out stopped his shot and then hit him with an elbow but you would need alot of sprawling training.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 24, 2003)

One thing I've done before is just yield backwards and "lead" his head on down to the ground. Kind of finishing the circle he started, just giving enough pressur to the back of his head to keep his momentum going until it is stoped by the ground. 

Is this something that grapplers have to train against having done to them?

7sm


----------



## Old Tiger (Dec 24, 2003)

A grappler or wreslter properly trained will not lead with his head as much as many people do. Their shoots are so well practiced the speed is difficult to deal with. In addition a grappler shooting properly will straighten his back almost upright as soon as he makes contact so that you cannot force him down.  In addition they are trained and practice complete commitment to the shoot and if you move back they will move with you and through you. If you move to the side they will have brought their trailing leg along side and will move with you and through you. If you wish to develop good skills both shooting and countering shoots you would be well advised to spend some time and I mean commit some time (not just one workout with five minutes of training) with a high level wrestler. You will find it will revolutionize your understanding of this issue.  This is a very important and often overlooked aspect of grappling. If you don't understand this you will end up on your back every time. you may even get slammed unconcious.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by catchevangelist _
> *A grappler or wreslter properly trained will not lead with his head as much as many people do. Their shoots are so well practiced the speed is difficult to deal with. In addition a grappler shooting properly will straighten his back almost upright as soon as he makes contact so that you cannot force him down.  In addition they are trained and practice complete commitment to the shoot and if you move back they will move with you and through you. If you move to the side they will have brought their trailing leg along side and will move with you and through you.  *



As much training and skill as the grappler has in shooting and moving with or through me, I also have the same amount of skill and training in yielding and feel. It would be interesting to work out with a really well trained grappler to see the differences in our counters to each other.

7sm


----------



## JDenz (Dec 24, 2003)

Definitly it is definitly an eye opener.  I have never seen a martial artest that hasn't trained with wrestlers or had wrestled themselves stop more then 1 out of ten shots.    Wrestlers also train in avoiding the shot and changing the shooters direction.  It isn't like wrestling is a crap shoot whoever shoots first gets the takedown.


----------



## Old Tiger (Dec 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> *As much training and skill as the grappler has in shooting and moving with or through me, I also have the same amount of skill and training in yielding and feel. It would be interesting to work out with a really well trained grappler to see the differences in our counters to each other.
> 
> 7sm *



I meant no offense with my post. I see you, as having trained to defend against a good shot, as the exception. That is all I am saying. Many schools begin training or sparring on their knees. I can see that for development in certain skills. But some of these and others  never train the takedown be it either performing a shot or defending against it. And I don't mean just in a wrestling and controlled environment. It should be trained including striking, kicking etc. So that the shot becomes part of your game. Most wrestlers must make adjustments for this too. They have not traditionally trained in an enviroment in which they may be punched or kicked or kneed as they come in. They have to rewire their brains to keep their hands in front of their face as they shoot in response to that threat. That is just one example. Thanks for the response and the interesting repartee'.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by catchevangelist _
> *I meant no offense with my post. I see you, as having trained to defend against a good shot, as the exception. That is all I am saying.  *



No worries, no offense taken. Its hard to respond on this medium without getting emotions confused.

I do try to train as realistically as possible in all possible situations.



> _Originally posted by JDenz _
> *Definitely it is definitly an eye opener. I have never seen a martial artest that hasn't trained with wrestlers or had wrestled themselves stop more then 1 out of ten shots. Wrestlers also train in avoiding the shot and changing the shooters direction. It isn't like wrestling is a crap shoot whoever shoots first gets the takedown.*



I'm not trying to offend you, I don't think it is a crap shoot, but your almost implying that stopping the shoot is a crap shoot itself. Neither would be, they both rely on serious training and skill. I routinely workout with a BJJ guy and I can tell you I get way more stops than 1 in 10.

7sm


----------



## chaosomega (Dec 25, 2003)

Whizzer!


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chaosomega _
> *Whizzer! *



Can anyone explain ??

7sm


----------



## Kyle (Dec 25, 2003)

> I routinely workout with a BJJ guy and I can tell you I get way more stops than 1 in 10.



Being a BJJ guy myself, I can say that the vast majority of BJJ guys are not good at takedowns.  You really ought to try your technique against a good wrestler.  I think my takedowns are decent, for a BJJ guy  , but I am always amazed at the takedown abilities of a good wrestler when they train at my school.

A whizzer is a wrestling term for overhook control of an arm.

    - Kyle


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2003)

My BJJ instructor has also said that wrestling has a clear edge in takedowns while BJJ is still better on the ground. He works with a local college wrestling team to improve his wrestling skills--meaning principally his takedowns.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2003)

I hear that, I should have said that he has just recently turned to BJJ he wrestled through high school and college. He's a big grappler, I'm not that knowledgable about the grappling arts, but he prides himself on his takedowns. 

Never-the-less, it seems a little one sided the idea that shooting is unstopable. If that is so why isn't everyone in the world using that technique? I mean its easy to say, "My art is the best" but that doesn't make it so. The fact is that a takedown is just like an armbreak, or say a simple jab. They are both relient on the training and skill level of the performer, AND on the training and skill level of the receiver.

7sm


----------



## JDenz (Dec 26, 2003)

It isn't my art is best thing.  Wrestling is 90 percent takedowns and defending the takedown.  Espically at higher levels.   Every match in wrestling is decided on the feet.   A good shot is hard to beat that is why coleman is so good.  Lets face it he has almost no skill punching and kicking on the feet and he has probley less submission skills then anyone lol.  The reason that it is not a technique that everyone can use is it takes serious practice as well as being gifted athleticly.   I wrestled in high school and collage and at the collage level there were guys that just were so much better then me on the feet that I couldn't stop or even slow down there takedowns.   A takedown is not the same as an arm break.  I think a take down is like about equilvent to 3/4 of the punches kicks and foot work in a striking are that is how much you work on them.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2003)

I see, so the takedown is basically the major technique used in grappling itself, then? 
What interests me so much is that yielding is the major technique used in my system, and these two major techniques head to head, make an interesting competition. The takedown is fast and hard to counter, normally ending in the opponent on the ground. While yielding is so "soft" it is extremely fast as well, and normally end with the opponent on the ground or in a Chin na. 
I find it fascinating to apply my techniques to other systems to see how I will modify them to work against every situation.

This is turning into some good conversation.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2003)

Geoff Thompson emphasizes that sport grappling training often starts from a neutral or advantageous to someone on-the-ground position but that _how_ you get to the ground really matters. A good takedown is the difference between landing in the mount (on top) or with someone having your back. This makes a big difference!


----------



## JDenz (Dec 26, 2003)

Not in grappling in wrestling.  I would say in general in grappling the takedown is very underpracticed.  So far in any of the tournments I have gone to I don't think there was one person there that could take me down or stop my takedown.   It really is an art it is something you either have or don't have to.  You can just see when you are coaching kids who has it and who doesn't in about two practices.  Not saying someone without the natural talent can't be good even great but it is very hard to make up for the physical gifts and balence.


----------



## Bod (Jan 27, 2004)

7SM - It doesn't surprise me that you can avoid the shoot (what you previously called  the lunge).

'The sprawl' is only shorthand for maintaining/lowering your base and moving your body weight forward at the same time. That is effectively what you are doing (I think). The shoot works best against very upright -read straight legged- fighters, for example western boxers. Most trad. kung fu drills a low stance, very difficult to shoot against.

Of course, a low stance does not defend as well against very mobile boxers. Footsweeps, take downs, chin-na and other 'grappling' techniques are more appropriate.

Finally, practice is essential to get any skill, but in striking arts, it is defence which is most skillful - and admired. A strong punch is much easierto develop than a skillful yielding parry. In grappling arts it is the opposite. Defensive skills are much easier to acquire than offensive skills - that is why there are passivity rules in judo.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jan 29, 2004)

Very interesting, good points.

7sm


----------

