# Evading a takedown



## Seabrook (Jul 19, 2007)

Hi Friends, 

Here is a link to the blog that I wrote today about how to avoid being taken to the ground by a grappler: 

http://jamieseabrook.blogspot.com/search?q=takedown 


Feedback welcome.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 19, 2007)

I had to smile to myself when you mentioned endurance, so many people concentrate on techniques and forget they need stamina! How would you go about defending a takedown from a face to face clinch ie where he brings his 'locked' arms down to your waist, pulls you in and then hooks his leg round yours pulling at you at the same time? (hope you can see what I mean, the guys always have a bit of a laugh with this one as it looks 'rude' almost groin to groin if that helps explain it?). You would end up landing on your back with him on top, he has to remember to ulnock his arms before you both land.
I can do this move easily and successfully against the men, all bigger than me, as it's balance more than strength but can't defend it.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 19, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I had to smile to myself when you mentioned endurance, so many people concentrate on techniques and forget they need stamina! How would you go about defending a takedown from a face to face clinch ie where he brings his 'locked' arms down to your waist, pulls you in and then hooks his leg round yours pulling at you at the same time? (hope you can see what I mean, the guys always have a bit of a laugh with this one as it looks 'rude' almost groin to groin if that helps explain it?). You would end up landing on your back with him on top, he has to remember to ulnock his arms before you both land.
> I can do this move easily and successfully against the men, all bigger than me, as it's balance more than strength but can't defend it.



If it were a sporting match, which, admittedly, is the context of both posts above, I'd be screwed. Which is one reason I don't do such events  (fun to watch, tho ). But if he dropped both hands to my waist, the picture that immediately comes to mind is both my thumbs driving into his throat and hands pushing back on his face (or worst case, eyes if the first part isn't enough). Very unsportsmanlike, I know, but the thought of being slammed on my back on concrete or asphalt is even uglier. So, yeah, 'go for the throat' for me.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 19, 2007)

Good stuff Seabrook! I would only add that as skilled as we could get at doing that stuff, and as skilled as Grapplers get at avoiding them, they're still going to happen. Even against the best trained, some of the takedowns still have a 90% success rate, and they know it's coming. 

I always took the view of escaping the holds, in a real manner. If it's inevitable you're going to end up there, especially if they are competent at it, might as well know for real, against their sport menatlity. That's our one, good advantage over them.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 20, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Good stuff Seabrook! I would only add that as skilled as we could get at doing that stuff, and as skilled as Grapplers get at avoiding them, they're still going to happen. Even against the best trained, some of the takedowns still have a 90% success rate, and they know it's coming.
> 
> I always took the view of escaping the holds, in a real manner. If it's inevitable you're going to end up there, especially if they are competent at it, *might as well know for real, against their sport menatlity. That's our one, good advantage over them.*


I guess at this point (having been taken down) I'd ratchet up to the thread on biting.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 21, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> If it were a sporting match, which, admittedly, is the context of both posts above, I'd be screwed. Which is one reason I don't do such events  (fun to watch, tho ). But if he dropped both hands to my waist, the picture that immediately comes to mind is both my thumbs driving into his throat and hands pushing back on his face (or worst case, eyes if the first part isn't enough). Very unsportsmanlike, I know, but the thought of being slammed on my back on concrete or asphalt is even uglier. So, yeah, 'go for the throat' for me.



That kind of sweep/takedown goes from a clinch position. The attacker doesn't just charge in; he/she *immediately* hooks under the arms and goes chest to chest. from arm to ram attachment. This means that, among other things, their head will be tucked to one side. Plus, an attack like you suggest doesn't actually solve the problem. You might hurt somebody, but you'll still fall down -- and  you'll have escalated the encounter, to boot.

As for the article, I'd really emphasize that there are two elements of "control distance." The dynamics of a body to body clinch are not the same as arms crossed. If you want to avoid being taken down, keeping away from body to body clinching is a good idea. So is learning to clinch yourself.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> How would you go about defending a takedown from a *face to face clinch* ie *where he brings his 'locked' arms down to your waist*, pulls you in and then hooks his leg round yours pulling at you at the same time? (hope you can see what I mean, the guys always have a bit of a laugh with this one as it looks 'rude' almost groin to groin if that helps explain it?). *You would end up landing on your back with him on top*, he has to remember to ulnock his arms before you both land.
> I can do this move easily and successfully against the men, all bigger than me, as it's balance more than strength but can't defend it.


This is what I was responding to, which is why I quoted it. Hands at waist, not chest, groin to groin, not chest to chest. I believe you've misread.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The attacker doesn't just charge in; he/she *immediately* hooks under the arms and goes chest to chest.


No, not according to the scenario *Tez *described, which is what I was responding to. 



> This means that, among other things, their head will be tucked to one side. Plus, an attack like you suggest doesn't actually solve the problem.


The attack I describe *immediately *solves the problem, since it drives their head up and back, and if I follow through, will take them off their feet and onto their back. If they tuck their head, I may end up working the technique more on one side than the center, but not matter: up and back motion on their neck/head puts them on their back regardless.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 21, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I had to smile to myself when you mentioned endurance, so many people concentrate on techniques and forget they need stamina! How would you go about defending a takedown from a face to face clinch ie where he brings his 'locked' arms down to your waist, pulls you in and then hooks his leg round yours pulling at you at the same time? (hope you can see what I mean, the guys always have a bit of a laugh with this one as it looks 'rude' almost groin to groin if that helps explain it?). You would end up landing on your back with him on top, he has to remember to ulnock his arms before you both land.
> I can do this move easily and successfully against the men, all bigger than me, as it's balance more than strength but can't defend it.



Which leg are you hooking with which? There's a Karo Parisyan clip on youtube that's interesting for this (



 -- no-gi ouchi gari), though he's not using double underhooks like you.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 21, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> This is what I was responding to, which is why I quoted it. Hands at waist, not chest, groin to groin, not chest to chest. I believe you've misread.



I find it difficult to imagine a situation where a person would lead with their groin yet somehow get the waist. The things that come to mind are either funny or slightly pornographic, and all unlikely.



> No, not according to the scenario *Tez *described, which is what I was responding to.



Actually, the comment I just got from her said I described it well.



> The attack I describe *immediately *solves the problem, since it drives their head up and back, and if I follow through, will take them off their feet and onto their back. If they tuck their head, I may end up working the technique more on one side than the center, but not matter: up and back motion on their neck/head puts them on their back regardless.



Funny story. I did get a guy once who wanted to see if his eye gouging would work, so I let him attempt it. An eye attack requires persistent pressure or significant force to be effective. This is quite difficult when:

* The person is too close to extend your arms.

* The person is moving erratically.

* You person is tossing the attacker on their bum.

My eyes are fine. We drank some beer afterwards.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 21, 2007)

The hook can be done with either leg and is done from the outside, the bodies should be closer together and are pulled even closer using your arms around the waist (it doesn't matter whether their arms are in or out of theirs but it makes for a worse fall for them if they are in) to pull them in and you arch your back a bit and pull their groin area into yours (hence the rude remarks we get). Their back goes into the top part of an the  s shape  making them off balance then you get withever leg you want around the outside of their leg and hook, they go straight down with you on top, if you are quick enough you go straight into mount or side control at the very least you'll be in guard. I find I can take all the big guys down with this, they hate it.

If you pull it on quickly their head actually snaps back a bit.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 21, 2007)

eyebeams said:


> I find it difficult to imagine a situation where a person would lead with their groin yet somehow get the waist. The things that come to mind are either funny or slightly pornographic, and all unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the comment I just got from her said I described it well.


Nevertheless, I used her original quote. Which I repeated in the second post in case you missed it.





> Funny story. I did get a guy once who wanted to see if his eye gouging would work, so I let him attempt it. An eye attack requires persistent pressure or significant force to be effective. This is quite difficult when:
> 
> * The person is too close to extend your arms.
> 
> ...


Glad you enjoyed the beer. 

I didn't mention eye gouges at all, so don't know what this has to do with anything. Anything to the eyes takes precision, or at least persistence. The technique I described uses gross motor skills (hands over face, thumbs under jaw/to top of throat--or bottom, if open), and the real danger is in really damaging his neck. 

*Don't need to extend arms

*If he's moving that erratically, he's not going to have the force to get under me to do a take down

*If he's on _his _bum, he's not going to be tossing anyone.


----------



## eyebeams (Jul 21, 2007)

Okay. Now, what would *I* do?

1) Drive my hips away to sprawl (or half sprawl) and sink.

2) After that, it depends on the feeling. If I can switch and straighten that hooked leg a counterthrow might be possible, or punch from the A-frame and shove.

Alternately, I can kick the hooked leg across my body, turn and try for a floating drop.

That's what comes to mind right now, anyway.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 27, 2007)

Seabrook said:


> Hi Friends,
> 
> Here is a link to the blog that I wrote today about how to avoid being taken to the ground by a grappler:
> 
> ...


 
In theory, heighth, width and depth are what has to  be controlled while using the four ranges...  I see critical distance is missing in your analysis, this particular concept is a sub cat of within range.  Controlling the gap is also missing... and controlling the gap is not an out of range control item although is exists there as well to some extent.  

To avoid a takedown... depends how sneaky the opponent is and his understanding of depth penetration.  Seems to me this is a losing game if all the opponent does is take people down and work submissions or seek a ground and pound ending.  

Not only does a Kenpo player have to understand his dimensional zones he has to know range- not only his range but have an understanding to the range of the opponent.  This means gaining experience from many body types.  There must be an understanding of positions, that is position recognition.  In simple terms- when the body  assumes a posture or position I have 3 defenses and 3 attacks for the look being offered at the range I am in.  

More or less, presumabley less, because I don't quite have enough time to lay it out better- the aforementioned is developmental theory on those who would violate your space with hostile intent.


----------



## Doc (Jul 27, 2007)

ChadWarner said:


> In theory, heighth, width and depth are what has to  be controlled while using the four ranges...  I see critical distance is missing in your analysis, this particular concept is a sub cat of within range.  Controlling the gap is also missing... and controlling the gap is not an out of range control item although is exists there as well to some extent.
> 
> To avoid a takedown... depends how sneaky the opponent is and his understanding of depth penetration.  Seems to me this is a losing game if all the opponent does is take people down and work submissions or seek a ground and pound ending.
> 
> ...


Hey Chad, what's crackin?


----------



## Seabrook (Jul 28, 2007)

ChadWarner said:


> In theory, heighth, width and depth are what has to be controlled while using the four ranges... I see critical distance is missing in your analysis, this particular concept is a sub cat of within range. Controlling the gap is also missing... and controlling the gap is not an out of range control item although is exists there as well to some extent.


 
Great points Chad. I agree with your post on almost all levels.

All I can is that I wrote a blog, not a book chapter, so the purpose was to merely describe what worked very well for me to evade being taken down.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 28, 2007)

Seabrook said:


> Great points Chad. I agree with your post on almost all levels.
> 
> All I can is that I wrote a blog, not a book chapter, so the purpose was to merely describe what worked very well for me to evade being taken down.


 
Thank you Mr. Seabrook, it is always tough to be all inclusive... Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.


----------



## ChadWarner (Jul 28, 2007)

Doc said:


> Hey Chad, what's crackin?


Hello Dr. Chapel, 

I hope all is well with you and your fine group.


----------



## masherdong (Aug 18, 2007)

> I had to smile to myself when you mentioned endurance, so many people concentrate on techniques and forget they need stamina! How would you go about defending a takedown from a face to face clinch ie where he brings his 'locked' arms down to your waist, pulls you in and then hooks his leg round yours pulling at you at the same time? (hope you can see what I mean, the guys always have a bit of a laugh with this one as it looks 'rude' almost groin to groin if that helps explain it?). You would end up landing on your back with him on top, he has to remember to ulnock his arms before you both land.
> I can do this move easily and successfully against the men, all bigger than me, as it's balance more than strength but can't defend it.



This is why my praying mantis teacher has us practice takedowns while we are sparring so that we can incorporate our jiu-jitsu skills.  You can not just be a striker alone, you must have some skills to survive on the ground.  As they say, when you are on the ground, it's a totally new ballgame.


----------



## Doc (Aug 19, 2007)

ChadWarner said:


> Hello Dr. Chapel,
> 
> I hope all is well with you and your fine group.



Just got back from Santa Rosa doing a lecture. Great group of people. When you coming my way again bud?


----------

