# Fence/shell/pike



## MattJ

A short vid showing use of the fence/shell/pike progression for self defense and control. The fence is a very useful tool in allowing other techniques to be set up, and for not allowing the opponent a chance to surprise you.


----------



## drop bear

Ironically sets you up to be double legged. Because your hands are so high.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I am just sitting here imagining the mean things I could do to the hands and arms, of somebody trying to stop me in that manner. The shell is OK, but your pre-shell stance is crazy.


----------



## MattJ

It's very effective actually.  Remember that in the fence, I'm ready for you.  It's much better than most kenpo techniques that begin with the hands down. I also teach sprawl/underhooks off of the fence, so no, you're not going to double leg someone easily off of that. Fence is based off of assumption that most street encounters will involve right-handed opponent swinging multiple haymakers.


----------



## drop bear

Overhook with a sprawl generally.


----------



## Buka

Nice job, Matt.


----------



## MattJ

Thnak you Buka. Drop bear, I like overhooks with sprawl, too, but I find that underhooks work better to keep it standing. BJ Penn's book changed my mind in that regard. Works well.


----------



## Danny T

MattJ said:


> I also teach sprawl/underhooks off of the fence, so no, you're not going to double leg someone easily off of that.


You sprawl with underhooks? Or, you sprawl with an over/under hook?


----------



## MattJ

It depends on the attempt. Sometimes I just sprawl on their head or shoulders, to flatten them out. If they get in deep, and there's nothing behind me, I might use over/under or double overs.  If I can catch them early, or they push me into something, then I would try to get double unders, and stand up. But I like using  underhooks off the sprawl more and more lately.  It's not going to work all the time, every time, but it's pretty effective. You see a lot of guys in the UFC use it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> It's very effective actually.  Remember that in the fence, I'm ready for you.  It's much better than most kenpo techniques that begin with the hands down. I also teach sprawl/underhooks off of the fence, so no, you're not going to double leg someone easily off of that. Fence is based off of assumption that most street encounters will involve right-handed opponent swinging multiple haymakers.


I must take issue that Hands Out is better than Hands at your side. As an attacker throwing a round-house kick at a hands down person, I must move a full two feet closer to make contact. Beat that.


----------



## Transk53

Touch Of Death said:


> I must take issue that Hands Out is better than Hands at your side. As an attacker throwing a round-house kick at a hands down person, I must move a full two feet closer to make contact. Beat that.



Why a full two feet?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Transk53 said:


> Why a full two feet?


Because, they aren't holding their hands out as targets, and I figure arms to be around two feet long.


----------



## Transk53

Touch Of Death said:


> Because, they aren't holding their hands out as targets, and I figure arms to be around two feet long.



Yeah. How the hell did you bother to know that  So you have the arc pretty much sorted then?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Transk53 said:


> Yeah. How the hell did you bother to know that  So you have the arc pretty much sorted then?


I would suggest having your hand up, but near the body.


----------



## Transk53

Touch Of Death said:


> I would suggest having your hand up, but near the body.




Yes. My hands are always up etc. Hands down is just suicide as far as I see it, and it is not just from a boxing stance


----------



## drop bear

MattJ said:


> Thnak you Buka. Drop bear, I like overhooks with sprawl, too, but I find that underhooks work better to keep it standing. BJ Penn's book changed my mind in that regard. Works well.



Cross face to keep it standing. I have a wrestler coming to stay with me today I will ask if there is any chance you can beat a guy to underhooks like that.


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Yes. My hands are always up etc. Hands down is just suicide as far as I see it, and it is not just from a boxing stance



Hands up is good. The issue with extending them that far forwards in that it creates a bit of gap between your hands and your head and your arms themselves become targets. (An actual opportunity to use limb destruction where normally you may not get that)

As your hands move away from your body they loose considerable strength. Hence the concept of tyrannosaurus arms.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Transk53 said:


> Yes. My hands are always up etc. Hands down is just suicide as far as I see it, and it is not just from a boxing stance


Kenpo has starting point, hands down, because of the assumption you really were just minding your own business, and, now, what do you do? Other than that, hands up rocks, but hands down beats hands out, hands down.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> As your hands move away from your body they loose considerable strength. Hence the concept of tyrannosaurus arms.



Then somewhat misquoted  The hands themselves don't lose power. They are just an instrument, used wisely, or not


----------



## Touch Of Death

Transk53 said:


> Then somewhat misquoted  The hands themselves don't lose power. They are just an instrument, used wisely, or not


Thank you Mr. Technical.


----------



## Transk53

Touch Of Death said:


> Thank you Mr. Technical.



Well of course, I can't do what you do, so I do what I do. Technical yes. Technical pretty much regresses to mechanical


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Then somewhat misquoted  The hands themselves don't lose power. They are just an instrument, used wisely, or not



Loose strength because you are structurally using them wrong. I think that I am still semantically correct.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Loose strength because you are structurally using them wrong. I think that I am still semantically correct.



Yes you are, but bear, look beyond semantics


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> Yes you are, but bear, look beyond semantics



Ok. I am not sure where you are going with this.


----------



## MattJ

drop bear said:


> Cross face to keep it standing. I have a wrestler coming to stay with me today I will ask if there is any chance you can beat a guy to underhooks like that.



Or you can watch the UFC.     Like I said, it won't work all the time, but it's not terribly difficult to get, either. I'm not saying I could stop a Jon Jones or Frankie Edgar takedown, but it can work against the average person/martial artist.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Ok. I am not sure where you are going with this.


----------



## drop bear

MattJ said:


> Or you can watch the UFC.     Like I said, it won't work all the time, but it's not terribly difficult to get, either. I'm not saying I could stop a Jon Jones or Frankie Edgar takedown, but it can work against the average person/martial artist.



Do you have an example of this working in the U.F.C?


----------



## Transk53

MattJ said:


> Or you can watch the UFC.     Like I said, it won't work all the time, but it's not terribly difficult to get, either. I'm not saying I could stop a Jon Jones or Frankie Edgar takedown, but it can work against the average person/martial artist.




Intrigued?


----------



## MattJ

drop bear said:


> Do you have an example of this working in the U.F.C?



Lots of examples of underhooks in the UFC, espcially against the cage.   Here's 2 I found right away :






First minute or as Shane pushes Frank back to the cage.





 
about 5 minutes in, Cerrone uses it against Henderson.

Really tons of them dude, feel free to check for yourself.


----------



## Danny T

MattJ said:


> Lots of examples of underhooks in the UFC, espcially against the cage.   Here's 2 I found right away :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First minute or as Shane pushes Frank back to the cage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about 5 minutes in, Cerrone uses it against Henderson.
> 
> Really tons of them dude, feel free to check for yourself.


Underhooking yes. But not with a sprawl.


----------



## MattJ

Ok......? I'm not stuck on underhooks  AND sprawl. Apparently you guys are.  I don't have time to search youtube for EXACTLY what you guys want. It is in BJ Penn's Mixed Martial Arts:The Book of Knowledge, in the Countering The Takedown section page 72. Feel free to tell him how wrong he is. I've seen it used in the UFC, and I've used it myself. Not sure where all the doubt is coming from. This isn't even a new technique, or something I made up - I am not nearly good enough at grappling.  I guess haters gonna hate.


----------



## Buka

MattJ said:


> Ok......? I'm not stuck on underhooks  AND sprawl.



I think your hair is parted on the wrong side.


----------



## drop bear

MattJ said:


> Ok......? I'm not stuck on underhooks  AND sprawl. Apparently you guys are.  I don't have time to search youtube for EXACTLY what you guys want. It is in BJ Penn's Mixed Martial Arts:The Book of Knowledge, in the Countering The Takedown section page 72. Feel free to tell him how wrong he is. I've seen it used in the UFC, and I've used it myself. Not sure where all the doubt is coming from. This isn't even a new technique, or something I made up - I am not nearly good enough at grappling.  I guess haters gonna hate.



There is no hate just information. If you want a solid takedown defence crossface,overhook,sprawl. If you want to do something else. Go for it.

you can Underhook on a single leg. Or underhook off the cage.

If you shell up you are vulnerable to takedowns. That is why you force a person to shell up in the first place. It is still an option. But you need to take account of its weaknesses.

If you suggest shelling up is fine because they are only going to throw hey makers. Fair enough. Go with that.


----------



## Danny T

MattJ said:


> Ok......? I'm not stuck on underhooks  AND sprawl. Apparently you guys are.  I don't have time to search youtube for EXACTLY what you guys want. It is in BJ Penn's Mixed Martial Arts:The Book of Knowledge, in the Countering The Takedown section page 72. Feel free to tell him how wrong he is. I've seen it used in the UFC, and I've used it myself. Not sure where all the doubt is coming from. This isn't even a new technique, or something I made up - I am not nearly good enough at grappling.  I guess haters gonna hate.


Whoa!!
This is a discussion board and when one puts something out as you have we are going to discuss the positive and negative aspects. 

Maybe what I am defining as a sprawl is somewhat different to what you define as sprawl.
When in a underhook on a person as you have shown what I call a sprawl will put my neck and back in a very precarious position.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

MattJ said:


> Ok......? I'm not stuck on underhooks  AND sprawl. Apparently you guys are.  I don't have time to search youtube for EXACTLY what you guys want. It is in BJ Penn's Mixed Martial Arts:The Book of Knowledge, in the Countering The Takedown section page 72. Feel free to tell him how wrong he is. I've seen it used in the UFC, and I've used it myself. Not sure where all the doubt is coming from. This isn't even a new technique, or something I made up - I am not nearly good enough at grappling.  I guess haters gonna hate.


Page 72 just shows a basic sprawl, no underhook. Perhaps you meant page 74? There he shows a sprawl with his left arm catching the shoulder in what you could sort of call an underhook, although I would see it as more of a crossface. It's definitely not what we normally think of when you mention underhooks.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Getting back to the original video, I think it's a perfectly reasonable basic self-defense progression against an untrained attacker. It's easy to teach, can be learned and remembered fairly quickly, and is adequate against an average unskilled attacker. It's not at all ideal against a trained fighter in the cage, but that's not what it's for.

My biggest complaint about the video is that distance management is not explained at all and what is demonstrated is on the sloppy side. The entire progression depends on proper distance management for effectiveness. If I was teaching the progression, distance control would be the core of the lesson.


----------



## MattJ

It was a bit sloppy, yes. If you watch, the orange belt starts attacking me while I'm still talking. Caught me a bit off guard (like real life), which is why you hear me laughing as I do the pike. The vid was meant to be a short introduction, not an encyclopedic compendium. The fence is all about basic distance control. So many people go into bad situations with their hands down, nose-to-nose, etc. The fence gets people away from that. It's not perfect (as you can see) but it takes a lot of the element of surprise away from the opponent.

drop bear - 



> There is no hate just information. If you want a solid takedown defence crossface,overhook,sprawl


 
Yeah, I actually detect some hate.  Some of you have continually reframed the debate to a very narrow, fairly off-topic thing (underhooks), despite me saying that's not all I use or teach.  You don't like the fence? No problem, use something else.  The shell is indeed vulnerable to takedowns, but the fence is not.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MattJ said:


> It was a bit sloppy, yes. If you watch, the orange belt starts attacking me while I'm still talking. Caught me a bit off guard (like real life), which is why you hear me laughing as I do the pike. The vid was meant to be a short introduction, not an encyclopedic compendium. The fence is all about basic distance control. So many people go into bad situations with their hands down, nose-to-nose, etc. The fence gets people away from that. It's not perfect (as you can see) but it takes a lot of the element of surprise away from the opponent.
> 
> drop bear -
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I actually detect some hate.  Some of you have continually reframed the debate to a very narrow, fairly off-topic thing (underhooks), despite me saying that's not all I use or teach.  You don't like the fence? No problem, use something else.  The shell is indeed vulnerable to takedowns, but the fence is not.


The fence is vulnerable to punches kicks, pulls, squeezes, bites, middle knuckle punches, slaps, and laughs.


----------

