# Taiji vs BJJ tackle.



## SwedishChef (Jun 6, 2005)

I have read many accounts of the "rooting" or self immobilizing techniques of taiji.  You know, stories about taiji practioners who couldn't be pushed over.  Has anyone seen or heard about how this holds up against a full on tackle attack akin to the bjj take down?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 6, 2005)

A double leg takedown is not just a tackle. 

 No amount of rooting is going to keep you on your feet against someone with good wrestling skills, you either learn to sprawl or get to fall


----------



## SwedishChef (Jun 6, 2005)

My mistake...against the super-de duper shabadabaduper double leg take down?  :uhyeah:


----------



## pete (Jun 6, 2005)

rooting is just one dimension of the tai chi fighter, while establishing his root and centering himself he is (2) actively disrupting the center of his opponent and (3) controling the 3rd center: the one that is formed between the 2 of them while they are engaged.  in this way, the opponent will not have proper leverage to take the tai chi fighter down, and continued attempts to do so will lead him into worse position.  

the skilled tai chi fighter will remain on his feet~


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 6, 2005)

If you just stand there, chances are you are going to be slammed.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 6, 2005)

As noted, settling into your root won't be enough, because the attacker is actively looking for leverage as well. Simple uprooting won't work either. You have to drop and interpose pun, then work the attacker's upper body. The results are much like sprawling and getting an under/over hold if you use hold golden ball, and look pretty similar. The difference is that you'll typically keep one leg a little farther forward. This makes you vulnerable to a single-leg, which is why it's so important to adhere and control the shoulders.

 Taiji tactics should actually be fairly agressive. While you do tend to move after the opponent *starts*, you should be moving to intercept and adhere as soon as he commits. Too many folks simply wait around. What you want to use in combat is "throwing stones down the well," the principle that, once an opening occurs, you're absolutelu decisive about attacking through it and continuing until the opponent's reaction forces you to change.

 You should learn to grapple to deal with the ground as well, but your TJQ work should never have a passive, overly soft character.


----------



## SwedishChef (Jun 6, 2005)

Thanks for your responses.  I wasn't thinking the person just standing there.  It was more about the initial hit I was thinking.  It would surprise the hell out of the grappler in any case.  We trained in Sil Lum Chuan Tao to do it (the take down) as an aid in helping each other learn to foil it, which everyone did before too long.  It involved foot work and movement of course since we, or at least I never learned any rooting techniques there.  But I have a real growing interest in the neijia arts so I'm eager to pick up as much info as possible about them.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 6, 2005)

Knocking the person over is not the goal of shooting...  If they stay where they are that makes taking them down a lot easier...


----------



## pete (Jun 7, 2005)

internal arts (neijia) is a lifetime endeavor and a change from the typical external (wujia) mindset.  as in all things, you will need a good teacher and a strong desire to learn.  done correctly, what appears to be standing still like an easy target for the BJJ-MMA-MOUSE (lol), is really stillnes within motion and motion within stillness.. rooting is part of it, but so is expansion, yielding, adhering and spiraling energy. 

 like trying to shoot a bowling ball~


----------



## dmax999 (Jun 7, 2005)

One thing I've always wondered about the BJJ takedowns is why don't "striking arts" take their free hit when the takedown is started.  Seems a simple knee lift,  or a downward elbow strike, would do wonders against a takedown.  Sure you might get knocked over, but I'm pretty sure that with one clean strike like that the other guy would be in no shape for fighting for at least a couple minutes.

I've seen about a hundred videos of art-x vs. BJJ where during the takedown the one guy just stands there.  I'm sure a good fa-jing strike at that moment would stop the takedown.

I don't know much about BJJ though.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 7, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> One thing I've always wondered about the BJJ takedowns is why don't "striking arts" take their free hit when the takedown is started. Seems a simple knee lift, or a downward elbow strike, would do wonders against a takedown. Sure you might get knocked over, but I'm pretty sure that with one clean strike like that the other guy would be in no shape for fighting for at least a couple minutes.
> 
> I've seen about a hundred videos of art-x vs. BJJ where during the takedown the one guy just stands there. I'm sure a good fa-jing strike at that moment would stop the takedown.
> 
> I don't know much about BJJ though.


Anybody who's good and going for a shoot is generally either flowing from evading a strike, going for an opening during a pause, or smothering it so it doesn't do much damage. Sometimes it's just easier to take the shot and keep going, since 90% of the time one blow won't matter much anyway. Finally, leg takedowns happen from a shorter range than you might think and are designed to wreck the fighter's base anyway.


----------



## SwedishChef (Jun 7, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> One thing I've always wondered about the BJJ takedowns is why don't "striking arts" take their free hit when the takedown is started. Seems a simple knee lift, or a downward elbow strike, would do wonders against a takedown. Sure you might get knocked over, but I'm pretty sure that with one clean strike like that the other guy would be in no shape for fighting for at least a couple minutes.
> 
> I've seen about a hundred videos of art-x vs. BJJ where during the takedown the one guy just stands there. I'm sure a good fa-jing strike at that moment would stop the takedown.
> 
> I don't know much about BJJ though.


We trained to get strike in but you really have move too.  If you have good footwork and head targeting you can get them.  Plus you can imagine what it must be like to miss the take down and dive into concrete.


----------



## dmax999 (Jun 9, 2005)

My post is mostly from ignorance of facing BJJ.  Seen a bunch of videos of it.  From what I have seen its hard to tell if stopping a takedown is easy or not.  Some people get stopped by someone doing anything to stop them, others seem to get the takedown no matter what the other guy does.

Until I face someone like that, I know what I need to do to stop a takedown, I'm just not sure I could actually make it work.  I am confident that I can get a strike in to stop them though.  I believe rules in UFC style fights outlaw the strikes I would likely do (knee to the face, kick to snap knee or pelvis, etc).  They frown on attempting to break bones.  I would do something as painful as possible because once on the ground I know I have no chance of winning then.

Funny side note: Took WC for years and got good at it.  Switched to Shaolin Kung-Fu and EVERY move from my WC is illegal in our sparring now.


----------



## SwedishChef (Jun 10, 2005)

Lol.


----------



## NotQuiteDead (Jun 11, 2005)

Double Leg 101

     The double leg is *not* not a tackle. You don't just dive at the opponent's legs and try to knock them over.

 A good double leg is done from about an arm's length away. If you can reach their head without leaning forward then you're in range.

     There are four main parts of the double leg as I see it:

     1) Set Up
     2) Level Change
     3) Penetration Step
     4) Finish

 The set up can be anything from simply touching their head to distract them, hitting them, clearing their arms out of the way, pulling their head down so they try to straight up, etc. You *do not* shoot on someone who is in a good stance. First you break his stance so he can't defend easily.

 The next two steps (level change and penetration step) are the most important, and apparently the least understood aspects of the double leg itself. Someone executing a dobule leg does not dive downward at angle towards the opponent's legs.

     A level change is when you lower your stance so you are in a crouched position. You drop *straight down*. This allows you to get under two of your opponent's lines of defense against the double leg, his head and his arms. If you set it up right, you should be dropping down below the level of the opponent's arms. Your back should be straight and your head should be up.

 The penetration step is when you are crouched after the level change and you move forward (in a straight line parallel to the ground, not diving downward) by driving with your back leg, taking a small step, and letting your front knee drop to the ground. Ideally your knee should either touch the ground or remain slightly off of the ground right between the opponent's feet (and below the center of gravity). As you do this you can wrap your arms around their legs at the back of the knee or calf. As you take the penetration step, your back should be straight and completely vertical. Your head should be up as well.

 The finish can be anything from picking them up and slamming to wrapping your back leg around their leg to trip them as you take them straight back.

     This is the motion made during a tackle (ignore the periods):
   \
    ...\
    ......\
    .........\

     This is the motion made during a double leg:
     l
     l
     l ------>


----------



## NotQuiteDead (Jun 11, 2005)

The only time I've seen a knee strike work as a defense against a takedown was when one of the Gracie's fought in Pride. Instead of doing a correct double leg, he dove straight at the Japanese fighter's legs. The Japanese fighter (I can't remember his name) barely had to raise his knee because the Gracie went face first right into it.

 If someone does a double leg the right way, their back will be straight and their head will be up. Kneeing them in the face will be hard, and kneeing them in the chest isn't going to do much except take away any chance of you remaining on your feet.


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 25, 2005)

After thinking about this a while I came up with the problems TC would have against BJJ takedowns and a solution.

TC tends not to resist force with force and turns your center so a strike doesn't land solidly. One thing I've noticed is that if someone puts a hand on each of your shoulders and push, they are basically going to push against your center. The solution is to move one of their hands out of the way before contact so they can't push on both sides of your center.

The takedown is the same thing, just from below the waist. I guess to correctly counter, the TC guy would drop just as the BJJ guy (push hands sensitivity would be key to the timing) and brush him to one side. The TC guy would be in a stance as low as a snake stance, and play push hands at that low of a level. If the BJJ guy still came forward and ended up off balance, it could be an opportuinty for a good throw.

Not sure how reasonable a defense this would be, but its the best I've been able to come up with following TC principles. I think its weakness is that a good BJJ person would never shoot when the other person had the ability to drop down at the same time as them and stop them like this. They tend to time it when the other person isn't going to have time to defend well, but that should never be the case in TC.

Any examples of a defender of a shoot droping just as soon and as low as the shooter?  Can't think of any I've seen, but I'm sure its been done at some point.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 26, 2005)

I dont know that the deffense would neccessarily *have* to contain either dropping down, or using both hands to push. But if it did then your correct.

7sm


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 26, 2005)

Could sprawling be considered a way to blend?


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 26, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Could sprawling be considered a way to blend?


 
While sprawling is an effective counter to a shoot, my problem is that a sprawl is not following TC principles.  I was attempting to come up with something that did follow the principles.

As for pushing with both hands, I was implying that the BJJ guy would attack with both hands on either side of your body, thus making sure he got your center for the take down.  If you manage to push one of his hands to the side with his other hand, he is then forced to fight the TC way and "feel for the opponents center" which I was betting he wouldn't be able to do.

I always thought the "sprawl" defense was a cop out and admitting that all non-grappling styles were ineffective against grappling.  I still don't believe that CMA are defensless against grappling, but it does show it at least requires knowing what you are going against to defend against it.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 27, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> While sprawling is an effective counter to a shoot, my problem is that a sprawl is not following TC principles. I was attempting to come up with something that did follow the principles.
> 
> As for pushing with both hands, I was implying that the BJJ guy would attack with both hands on either side of your body, thus making sure he got your center for the take down. If you manage to push one of his hands to the side with his other hand, he is then forced to fight the TC way and "feel for the opponents center" which I was betting he wouldn't be able to do.
> 
> I always thought the "sprawl" defense was a cop out and admitting that all non-grappling styles were ineffective against grappling. I still don't believe that CMA are defensless against grappling, but it does show it at least requires knowing what you are going against to defend against it.


 
The way I was taught, a good sprawl does not meet force with force, it blends with the attack, riding on top of it... using your balance to destroy the attacker's... I don't do Tai Chi but I don't see how this is a "cop out".


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 27, 2005)

Yeah, I agree, a correctly executed "spawl" is in accordance with the principels of tai chi as I understand them. The only place it could get sticky is if your sprawling too far and allowing yoruself to be taken off balance or "center".

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2005)

A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...


----------



## Solidman82 (Oct 27, 2005)

a BJJ Tackle or takedown is everything you described an internal stylist to do. The move their centerline with force and uproot the balance of another. A TCQ practioner should be trained for just that kind of combat.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...


  I'd say Cloud Hands would be good for that (half sprawl and an over/under hold), but only if you train for strongly supporting with pun. Lots of schools have notoriously weak pun because pun looks like force against force and quickly gets dropped for the hippies. I certainly don't expect an average TJQ guy to know how to resist a single or double leg.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> A sprawl certainly has the center of mass way out of line, supported by the opponent's force--is that in accord with Tai Chi principles? I'm no expert, but I'm not so sure...



I think its common for "center of mass" to be mistaken for "center of balance" in tai chi. I think what you just explained is actually quite in accordance with true tai chi principles. At least combat oriented tai chi.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

Center of mass and center of balance mean the same thing in science--what's the distinction here?

I know very little about Tai Chi so I'm sure you're right--I just don't get the distinction.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Center of mass and center of balance mean the same thing in science--what's the distinction here?
> 
> I know very little about Tai Chi so I'm sure you're right--I just don't get the distinction.


 Well, the "center of mass" is basically the point in the body where the whole mass is concentrated. However that is not neccessarily the center of balance. In tai chi and other styles that focus on "center" the practitioner learns not only to feel and move opponents center but also feel and move their own center. For instance, if someone puts their open palm on your lower chest, they can manipulate your center, feeling where its at and quite easily use it to move you. A person who studies these types of techniques and principles usually learns how to feel when the opponent "catches their center" and can manipulate it themselves before the pushing begins. 

The distinction is more of a visual one. What appears to be the center of mass could very well not be the point at which you can "catch their balance" and move them with it. In humjan biology the "Center of Mass" is generally considered to be located at sacral promontory, anterior to S2, at 55% of body height. However, the body is segmented and many "COM" or "COG" points are defined. With the body being mobile and with a practitioners skill in turning and moving their own center of balance, finding the COG (COM) doesn't neccessarily allow you to "uproot" or move the person's balance. 

That make any sense at all? It almost sounds like a semantical arguement, but its not. Basically I'm saying that what looks like the center of mass may not be the point at which the persons balance is held. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

Ah, yes, I get it! I think I make the same distinction but using much different language. Yes, where it's easy to tip/move them isn't necessarily where their theoretical center of mass is located.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 30, 2005)

Yeah, we are on the same page


----------



## Shogun (Nov 5, 2005)

So basically, your center of Mass is your physical center (core), and cannot be moved from such, while you can manipulate where your center of balance is. Hai.


----------

