# I'm sorry, but this whole "Anti-Grappling" thing horrifies me



## Marnetmar

Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?


----------



## K-man

What exactly are you questioning?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Marnetmar said:


> Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?


It works by demonstrating the techniques on compliant students who have no idea how grappling works.

Actually some of the techniques being demoed are valid if they are done correctly, which they mostly aren't in this video. Others are valid tactics if you just happen to end up on the ground while fighting someone who doesn't know how to grapple - it's just a misnomer to call them "anti-grappling."


----------



## Tez3

Under the video there is a disclaimer which indicates what you see isn't necessarily what the videos will be about.

"You can buy this DVD at Everything Wing Chun - Books Videos DVDs Wooden Dummy Butterfly Swords Long Poles more Wing Chun Kung Fu Ving Tsun Kung Fu Martial arts. or download it at www.WingChunVideos.com. *This sample is intended to* *show production quality and/or sample of instruction quality only, and may not represent what this DVD is all about*. Please read the full description on Everything Wing Chun - Books Videos DVDs Wooden Dummy Butterfly Swords Long Poles more Wing Chun Kung Fu Ving Tsun Kung Fu Martial arts."


----------



## geezer

Tony Dismukes said:


> It works by demonstrating the techniques on compliant students who have no idea how grappling works.
> 
> Actually some of the techniques being demoed are valid if they are done correctly, which they mostly aren't in this video. Others are valid tactics if you just happen to end up on the ground while fighting someone who doesn't know how to grapple - it's just a misnomer to call them "anti-grappling."



Good points. Almost anything works on compliant demo partners. Some people are compliant out of reverence for their instructor. Another way to keep them compliant is to basically _scare the poop out of them_. Victor Gutierrez is _a strong scary SOB_. Now, I've never actually met him, but based on what I've seen and heard, I'd be pretty compliant if I were attending one of his seminars.

I wasn't always such a push-over. In the late 1980s, I met and attended a seminar with a certain _Turkish _WT guy who was visiting the US from Germany (where he had just earned notoriety for defeating a famous "grandmaster" of "traditional" WC in a challenge fight). At that time this individual was a martial arts _beast_, and very effective at striking arts. However (as the old videos of his infamous challenge match show) his grappling skills were not yet well developed. BTW Joy will remember this event, since he attended a public demo given by this individual right after the seminar I'm speaking of.

Anyway, at on point in , this instructor swept me and _followed me to the ground_. Well, I grew up wrestling (my big brother was a state champion in high school and varsity wrestler at his college). So in spite of being much smaller than this guy, I reversed him and momentarily took control. I quickly found out that you DO NOT make such an individual look vulnerable without being punished. ...Needless to say I was _quite compliant _for the rest of the seminar!

BTW I have encountered this same individual on a couple of occasions since and can say that he seems to be an excellent instructor as well as a superior athlete, and he was quite friendly to me. So, there's no criticism intended. I'm just pointing out one reason why people are so compliant!


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> Good points. Almost anything works on compliant demo partners. Some people are compliant out of reverence for their instructor. Another way to keep them compliant is to basically _scare the poop out of them_. Victor Gutierrez is _a strong scary SOB_. Now, I've never actually met him, but based on what I've seen and heard, I'd be pretty compliant if I were attending one of his seminars.
> 
> I wasn't always such a push-over. In the late 1980s, I met and attended a seminar with a certain _Turkish _WT guy who was visiting the US from Germany (where he had just earned notoriety for defeating a famous "grandmaster" of "traditional" WC in a challenge fight). At that time this individual was a martial arts _beast_, and very effective at striking arts. However (as the old videos of his infamous challenge match show) his grappling skills were not yet well developed. BTW Joy will remember this event, since he attended a public demo given by this individual right after the seminar I'm speaking of.
> 
> Anyway, at on point in , this instructor swept me and _followed me to the ground_. Well, I grew up wrestling (my big brother was a state champion in high school and varsity wrestler at his college). So in spite of being much smaller than this guy, I reversed him and momentarily took control. I quickly found out that you DO NOT make such an individual look vulnerable without being punished. ...Needless to say I was _quite compliant _for the rest of the seminar!
> 
> BTW I have encountered this same individual on a couple of occasions since and can say that he seems to be an excellent instructor as well as a superior athlete, and he was quite friendly to me. So, there's no criticism intended. I'm just pointing out one reason why people are so compliant!


--------------------------------------------------------
-I remenber the event and the later demo in Arizona quite  well. He drew blood from the mouth of his demo  partner.

Yes things can work on  compliant partners but conversely if you beat up on partners pretty soon you wont have partner.

A fight is a fight. A demo is not a fight. Its a simulation. The demonstrator has a responsibilty to explain and the observer has to try his/her best to understand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The

- 1/2 fake is your opponent will give you that opportunity.
- 1/2 real is you have to finish it.

If your opponent has to help you to finish, that will be 100% fake.


----------



## Vajramusti

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The
> 
> - 1/2 fake is your opponent will give you that opportunity.
> - 1/2 real is you have to finish it.
> 
> If your opponent has to help you to finish, that will be 100% fake.


---------------------------------------

True


----------



## K-man

I think this is all a beat up on WC. We had a very long discussion on 'anti-grappling' some time back and a certain member put up videos and tore strips off the lot of it. I thought at the time it was style bashing. 

Since then I have had time to think more about it. People bag TMAs for not adapting to new concepts. Here we have a style, WC, adding an element to their training which, for better or worse, they have labeled 'anti-grappling'. Now I might have thought the detractors might have welcomed that as an improvement, but no, it is 'hilarious'.

Having watched a number of these 'anti-grappling' videos I have come to the realisation that 'anti-grappling' is what every style of martial art, apart from those that want to fight on the ground, does, just without the name. Karate doesn't want to stay fighting on the ground, Aikido doesn't want to be fighting on the ground, nor do Kung fu, TKD, Baguazhang, Systema, Krav or any other style you want to name. They all teach that you don't want to be on the ground but that if you do go to the ground you regain your feet ASAP. 

What you might argue is that the videos shown don't demonstrate what they are trying to show as well as a BJJ black belt might show, but hey, we aren't training to fight BJJ black belts and we aren't planning to fight in the ring. In fact many of us are training with no desire to fight at all. In the unlikely event we might need our fighting skills, the person we are likely to be fighting will most likely be unskilled. To spend years training ground skills in the unlikely event that we will need them to fight on the ground against a skilled grappler is, to me a waste of time, unless that is the training you enjoy and want to do.

So, to those who keep wanting to bag 'anti-grappling', do something positive. Post some videos that will help those of us who don't want to stay on the ground instead of tearing down everything you see.

End of rant!


----------



## Vajramusti

K-man said:


> I think this is all a beat up on WC. We had a very long discussion on 'anti-grappling' some time back and a certain member put up videos and tore strips off the lot of it. I thought at the time it was style bashing.
> 
> Since then I have had time to think more about it. People bag TMAs for not adapting to new concepts. Here we have a style, WC, adding an element to their training which, for better or worse, they have labeled 'anti-grappling'. Now I might have thought the detractors might have welcomed that as an improvement, but no, it is 'hilarious'.
> 
> Having watched a number of these 'anti-grappling' videos I have come to the realisation that 'anti-grappling' is what every style of martial art, apart from those that want to fight on the ground, does, just without the name. Karate doesn't want to stay fighting on the ground, Aikido doesn't want to be fighting on the ground, nor do Kung fu, TKD, Baguazhang, Systema, Krav or any other style you want to name. They all teach that you don't want to be on the ground but that if you do go to the ground you regain your feet ASAP.
> 
> What you might argue is that the videos shown don't demonstrate what they are trying to show as well as a BJJ black belt might show, but hey, we aren't training to fight BJJ black belts and we aren't planning to fight in the ring. In fact many of us are training with no desire to fight at all. In the unlikely event we might need our fighting skills, the person we are likely to be fighting will most likely be unskilled. To spend years training ground skills in the unlikely event that we will need them to fight on the ground against a skilled grappler is, to me a waste of time, unless that is the training you enjoy and want to do.
> 
> So, to those who keep wanting to bag 'anti-grappling', do something positive. Post some videos that will help those of us who don't want to stay on the ground instead of tearing down everything you see.
> 
> End of rant!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont do videos. But I dont use  the label anti grappling.And I dont stay on  the ground if I  end up on the ground.


----------



## K-man

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I dont do videos. But I dont use  the label anti grappling.And I dont stay on  the ground if I  end up on the ground.


And that is exactly what I am saying!


----------



## Steve

I think the real flaw here is simply developing strategies based upon misconceptions, and then using these flawed strategies to develop techniques, which you then teach to others untested.   That is all.  It could be anti anything, and this could be true.    I only see the flaws so well highlighted because I have experience in this area.   If a bjjer were to develop an anti-wc curriculum grounded in poor technique and fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, I'm sure the folks here would express similar concerns.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> Post some videos that will help those of us who don't want to stay on the ground ...



The "body slam" will be a good "anti-grappling" strategy. The problem is you have to be a good grappler in order to use it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> If a bjjer were to develop an anti-wc curriculum grounded in poor technique and fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, I'm sure the folks here would express similar concerns.


That's true. When I posted my "anti-striking" strategy by using "rhino guard", I got similar concerns as, "It won't work against a good boxer ...".

IMO, "anti-" is a bad word to use. It will upset many people.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "body slam" will be a good "anti-grappling" strategy. The problem is you have to be a good grappler in order to use it.


Mate, it's not even an option for smaller, older or weaker people when confronted by someone bigger, stronger, and younger. To me, that's grappling, not anti-grappling.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's true. When I posted my "anti-striking" strategy by using "rhino guard", I got similar concerns as, "It won't work against a good boxer ...".
> 
> IMO, "anti-" is a bad word to use. It will upset many people.


I know you have posted this video many times. For me, it is not something that appeals at all, but if it works for you, great, go for it.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I think this is all a beat up on WC. We had a very long discussion on 'anti-grappling' some time back and a certain member put up videos and tore strips off the lot of it. I thought at the time it was style bashing.
> 
> Since then I have had time to think more about it. People bag TMAs for not adapting to new concepts. Here we have a style, WC, adding an element to their training which, for better or worse, they have labeled 'anti-grappling'. Now I might have thought the detractors might have welcomed that as an improvement, but no, it is 'hilarious'.
> 
> Having watched a number of these 'anti-grappling' videos I have come to the realisation that 'anti-grappling' is what every style of martial art, apart from those that want to fight on the ground, does, just without the name. Karate doesn't want to stay fighting on the ground, Aikido doesn't want to be fighting on the ground, nor do Kung fu, TKD, Baguazhang, Systema, Krav or any other style you want to name. They all teach that you don't want to be on the ground but that if you do go to the ground you regain your feet ASAP.
> 
> What you might argue is that the videos shown don't demonstrate what they are trying to show as well as a BJJ black belt might show, but hey, we aren't training to fight BJJ black belts and we aren't planning to fight in the ring. In fact many of us are training with no desire to fight at all. In the unlikely event we might need our fighting skills, the person we are likely to be fighting will most likely be unskilled. To spend years training ground skills in the unlikely event that we will need them to fight on the ground against a skilled grappler is, to me a waste of time, unless that is the training you enjoy and want to do.
> 
> So, to those who keep wanting to bag 'anti-grappling', do something positive. Post some videos that will help those of us who don't want to stay on the ground instead of tearing down everything you see.
> 
> End of rant!



The use of dogma.

So wing Chun wants a ground system but wants it to follow the principles of wing chun. And you wind up with a classical mess.

There are plenty of good videos out there. And we have an open mat every Saturday. No shortage of opportunity.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think the real flaw here is simply developing strategies based upon misconceptions, and then using these flawed strategies to develop techniques, which you then teach to others untested.   That is all.  It could be anti anything, and this could be true.    I only see the flaws so well highlighted because I have experience in this area.   If a bjjer were to develop an anti-wc curriculum grounded in poor technique and fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, I'm sure the folks here would express similar concerns.



Yeah mma is now coining the term anti jujitsu a bit. But it is thrown against actual jujitsu guys.


----------



## drop bear

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I dont do videos. But I dont use  the label anti grappling.And I dont stay on  the ground if I  end up on the ground.



You stay on the ground if you cant wrestle.


----------



## Danny T

In fighting there is no such thing. Even boxers grapple. Standing clinch work Is Grappling, Lop Sao Is Grappling!!
Grappling is to grasp, seize, hold, clinch etc. be it standing or on the ground.
He calls what he does Anti-Grappling yet he shows numerous examples (poor but non the less) of grappling as anti grappling???


----------



## K-man

Danny T said:


> In fighting there is no such thing. Even boxers grapple. Standing clinch work Is Grappling, Lop Sao Is Grappling!!
> Grappling is to grasp, seize, hold, clinch etc. be it standing or on the ground.
> He calls what he does Anti-Grappling yet he shows numerous examples (poor but non the less) of grappling as anti grappling???


OK, but let's take it in the context intended, ground fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> In fighting there is no such thing. Even boxers grapple. Standing clinch work Is Grappling, Lop Sao Is Grappling!!
> Grappling is to grasp, seize, hold, clinch etc. be it standing or on the ground.
> He calls what he does Anti-Grappling yet he shows numerous examples (poor but non the less) of grappling as anti grappling???



Yes.... He says tentatively.

There are tactics you can employ that prevents the clinch, takedown, submission dynamic.

And promotes opportunities to strike.

A good well rounded fighter should be using both methods depending what they are trying to do.

And grappling to create opportunities to strike becomes a bit of a mouthful


----------



## Danny T

K-man said:


> OK, but let's take it in the context intended, ground fighting.


Ok
He calls what he does Anti-Grappling yet he shows numerous examples (poor but non the less) of grappling as anti grappling???


----------



## Jake104

Marnetmar said:


> Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?


First off train with real grapplers! Not grappler impersonators!  It used to scare me to cause I have a bad back. Throws still scare the crap out of me. It wasn't till I watched Kyuzo Mifune. I realized it's all energy and timing. Of coarse I can only dream of doing what he does. But it's possible. Oh yeah and Steven Segal movies helped too! Haha!


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Yes.... He says tentatively.
> 
> There are tactics you can employ that prevents the clinch, takedown, submission dynamic.
> 
> And promotes opportunities to strike.
> 
> A good well rounded fighter should be using both methods depending what they are trying to do.
> 
> And grappling to create opportunities to strike becomes a bit of a mouthful


Good post! For me, I prefer to train the clinch and become comfortable in it, rather then trying to avoid it. Chances are there will be a clinch. So training to avoid it may be wishful thinking. I'm fortunate enough to train with great grapplers. So I've become very at home in the clinch. On the ground for street protection. I have a folder blade with a skull crusher. So in the street I'd fear for my life and pull it out and deal with repercussion later.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...IMO, "anti-" is a bad word to use. It will upset many people.



Reading peoples reactions on a number of threads, I've come to the same conclusion. Rather than "Anti-Grappling" I think I'd go with something like "Escape and Recovery Strategies for Strikers" ... something to file in your bag of "Oshit Techniques".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Jake104 said:


> I prefer to train the clinch ...


Agree! After someone took you down by "single leg", you can have 2 options:

- To be good at the "single leg" yourself, or
- To be good at the "single leg counters".


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> The use of dogma.
> 
> So wing Chun wants a ground system but wants it to follow the principles of wing chun. And you wind up with a classical mess.



I don'y think _most_ WC guys believe the system is, or should be, a ground fighting system, but they want a way to escape and recover their striking game. As K-Man said earlier, that's something all strikers want regardless of their style.

...Now as far as the "_principles_ of Wing Chun", they are not anathema to grappling. _Conceptually_ there is a lot of overlap if you are a  broad-minded thinker. For starters, grappling involves efficiency, economy of movement, speed, timing, power generation, balance and sensitivity, big time -- almost like full body chi-sau.  Now for the _techniques_ -- you need a good _grappling_ coach!


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Good post! For me, I prefer to train the clinch and become comfortable in it, rather then trying to avoid it. Chances are there will be a clinch. So training to avoid it may be wishful thinking. I'm fortunate enough to train with great grapplers. So I've become very at home in the clinch. On the ground for street protection. I have a folder blade with a skull crusher. So in the street I'd fear for my life and pull it out and deal with repercussion later.



I clinch when I want to. (well depending on how good the other guy is)

Not when he does.

Good getting up off the ground and submission defence. Would have to be beneficial to the idea of going for a weapon. 

I mean a lot of the ideas would match.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I don'y think _most_ WC guys believe the system is, or should be, a ground fighting system, but they want a way to escape and recover their striking game. As K-Man said earlier, that's something all strikers want regardless of their style.
> 
> ...Now as far as the "_principles_ of Wing Chun", they are not anathema to grappling. _Conceptually_ there is a lot of overlap if you are a  broad-minded thinker. For starters, grappling involves efficiency, economy of movement, speed, timing, power generation, balance and sensitivity, big time -- almost like full body chi-sau.  Now for the _techniques_ -- you need a good _grappling_ coach!



In that example of the video and the mindset behind that. And it is not a wing chun monopoly.

I have had good kick boxers try to out strike me from the bottom.

It is good to notice the overlapping methodology. It is pretty silly to manufacture them.


----------



## Buka

geezer said:


> Reading peoples reactions on a number of threads, I've come to the same conclusion. Rather than "Anti-Grappling" I think I'd go with something like "Escape and Recovery Strategies for Strikers" ... something to file in your bag of "Oshit Techniques".



"Bag of Oshit techniques". 

Man, I really like that. I'll be using that term forever. Might even get my bag monogrammed.


----------



## Danny T

I use 'O. S. techniques. 
Oh **** or Oh shucks - fits most any crowd.


----------



## Hanzou

Marnetmar said:


> Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?



It doesn't work. It's pure nonsense created in order to steer potential students away from cross-training in grappling arts or MMA in general.

It's probably the lowest of the low in terms of martial arts training. Instead of admitting a weakness and simply pointing your students towards other places to address that weakness (or cross training and teaching your students personally), you create something wholly ineffective and LIE about its origins. I've actually heard WC practitioners say that this anti-grappling stuff has been in WC from the beginning. Hilarious.

Ironically, it actually makes your art look _worse_ in the process. After all, if you're willing to allow this into your system, what else is in your system that is ineffective?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> What you might argue is that the videos shown don't demonstrate what they are trying to show as well as a BJJ black belt might show, but hey, we aren't training to fight BJJ black belts and we aren't planning to fight in the ring. In fact many of us are training with no desire to fight at all. In the unlikely event we might need our fighting skills, the person we are likely to be fighting will most likely be unskilled. To spend years training ground skills in the unlikely event that we will need them to fight on the ground against a skilled grappler is, to me a waste of time, unless that is the training you enjoy and want to do.
> 
> So, to those who keep wanting to bag 'anti-grappling', do something positive. Post some videos that will help those of us who don't want to stay on the ground instead of tearing down everything you see.
> 
> End of rant!



Here's the problem though; As MMA becomes more and more popular, you're going to have more people learning grappling. It doesn't help that there's literally thousands of instructional Youtube videos for Bjj, Sambo, Judo, and CACC out there that are incredibly good, and really simple to learn from. You're never going to be as good as Bjj upper belt, or a Judo/Sambo black belt, but someone could attain intermediate level or slightly higher by getting together with their buddies in a garage and simply grappling with each other. Couple that with someone from a solid/strong wrestling background, and that level of skill could potentially get even higher than that.

Your goal is to get up? Great. The person who put you down has a goal of keeping you pinned while he drops bombs on your face. What's worse is that in the unlikely event that you get back to your feet, nothing stops that guy from putting you right back on the ground again and dropping more bombs on your face. He has the advantage by default.

You simply can't count on the belief that your opponent will be unskilled, and you can't count on the belief that ineffective skills based on ineffective principles is going to save your hide. If you believe that you need to develop an entire system of "anti-grappling" to handle this hole in your art, as these WC instructors clearly believe that they do, *then learn it the right way*.

Learn how to grapple first, then learn how to PROPERLY counter it. If you're cobbling together a bunch of BS, then you're wasting your time, and potentially putting your student's lives at risk.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Here's the problem though; As MMA becomes more and more popular, you're going to have more people learning grappling. It doesn't help that there's literally thousands of instructional Youtube videos for Bjj, Sambo, Judo, and CACC out there that are incredibly good, and really simple to learn from. You're never going to be as good as Bjj upper belt, or a Judo/Sambo black belt, but someone could attain intermediate level or slightly higher by getting together with their buddies in a garage and simply grappling with each other. Couple that with someone from a solid/strong wrestling background, and that level of skill could potentially get even higher than that.
> 
> Your goal is to get up? Great. The person who put you down has a goal of keeping you pinned while he drops bombs on your face. What's worse is that in the unlikely event that you get back to your feet, nothing stops that guy from putting you right back on the ground again and dropping more bombs on your face. He has the advantage by default.
> 
> You simply can't count on the belief that your opponent will be unskilled, and you can't count on the belief that ineffective skills based on ineffective principles is going to save your hide. If you believe that you need to develop an entire system of "anti-grappling" to handle this hole in your art, as these WC instructors clearly believe that they do, *then learn it the right way*.
> 
> Learn how to grapple first, then learn how to PROPERLY counter it. If you're cobbling together a bunch of BS, then you're wasting your time, and potentially putting your student's lives at risk.


----------



## Vajramusti

It depends.... on whose wing chun you are referring to.


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> It depends.... on whose wing chun you are referring to.



Right... 

Did you actually see the techniques shown in the OP?


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Right...
> 
> Did you actually see the techniques shown in the OP?


------------------------------------------------------
I did. he did it in his way. I would do it in mine.
There are different perspectives in wing chun.


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------
> I did. he did it in his way. I would do it in mine.
> There are different perspectives in wing chun.



Except we're not talking about *your* way, we're talking about his way, and his way (and the way of every WC anti-grappling video I've seen) is decisively the *wrong* way.


----------



## VT_Vectis

Hanzou this is a thread for debate by WC people, about WC, for WC people.
How about you leave off commenting on the WC forum and save us all a lot of hassle? Before this thread , like  every other thread on the WC forum which you comment on, turns into a  "MMA/BJJ is the best and Wing Chun is useless" flamer, as usual.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou, pardon me for condensing your quote a bit and leaving out the more inflammatory and emotional parts (_"...you create something wholly ineffective and LIE about its origins."_). After all this is a forum for friendly discussion, not "fraud busting". At any rate, I actually _agree_ with your comments below:



Hanzou said:


> It doesn't work. ...Instead of admitting a weakness and simply pointing your students towards other places to address that weakness (or cross training and teaching your students personally), you create something wholly ineffective. ...Ironically, it actually makes your art look _worse_ in the process.



I do not consider myself adequately trained to teach my students grappling. I _am_ competent enough to show them some some of the vulnerabilities of WC to grappling, and for those who have the time and interest, I can recommend a couple of good gyms where they can cross train properly. Actually, I've lost a few students that way, but I've kept their respect.



Hanzou said:


> Here's the problem though; As MMA becomes more and more popular, you're going to have more people learning grappling. It doesn't help that there's literally thousands of instructional Youtube videos for Bjj, Sambo, Judo, and CACC out there that are incredibly good, and really simple to learn from. You're never going to be as good as Bjj upper belt, or a Judo/Sambo black belt, but someone could attain intermediate level or slightly higher by getting together with their buddies in a garage and simply grappling with each other. Couple that with someone from a solid/strong wrestling background, and that level of skill could potentially get even higher than that.



True enough. In today's world, it's likely that a lot of guys will have some knowledge of grappling.




Hanzou said:


> Your goal is to get up? Great. The person who put you down has a goal of keeping you pinned while he drops bombs on your face. What's worse is that in the unlikely event that you get back to your feet, nothing stops that guy from putting you right back on the ground again and dropping more bombs on your face.



Yep. That would be the general plan for a grappler. Ground and pound or a submission.



Hanzou said:


> You simply can't count on the belief that your opponent will be unskilled, and you can't count on the belief that ineffective skills based on ineffective principles is going to save your hide.



True again. Neither can you count on the belief that your attacker will be unarmed or alone. Grappling skills may not save your backside either.



Hanzou said:


> Learn how to grapple first, then learn how to PROPERLY counter it. If you're cobbling together a bunch of BS, then you're wasting your time, and potentially putting your student's lives at risk.



Again, I don't disagree. Whatever system you choose to study, definitely maintain a critical mind and seek out the best training available. On the other hand, Hanzou, you really need to get out of your BJJ bubble. For example,  I've seen BJJ defenses against weapons that I find less than ideal. But I don't go around bashing the system and saying that people should dump their art in favor of the branch of FMA I train. Let's tone things down a bit and have some mutual respect.


----------



## Hanzou

VT_Vectis said:


> Hanzou this is a thread for debate by WC people, about WC, for WC people.



Read the OP.



> Before this thread , like  every other thread on the WC forum which you comment on, turns into a  "MMA/BJJ is the best and Wing Chun is useless" flamer, as usual.



Where did I say WC is useless? I'm saying that making up ineffective techniques against grappling is silly and an exercise in futility. If you're concerned about grappling, actually learn grappling so that you can properly learn how to counter it.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Read the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say WC is useless? I'm saying that making up ineffective techniques against grappling is silly and an exercise in futility. If you're concerned about grappling, actually learn grappling so that you can properly learn how to counter it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP way is not the only way and is not my way.
I have worked with good grapplers and so have my good  wing chun sihings.


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> Again, I don't disagree. Whatever system you choose to study, definitely maintain a critical mind and seek out the best training available. On the other hand, Hanzou, you really need to get out of your BJJ bubble. For example,  I've seen BJJ defenses against weapons that I find less than ideal. But I don't go around bashing the system and saying that people should dump their art in favor of the branch of FMA I train. Let's tone things down a bit and have some mutual respect.



Bjj weapon defenses come from classical JJ/Judo so it's a bit of a different situation than WC anti-grappling which was created recently in response to BJJ/MMA. 

That said, if I was serious about unarmed fighting against knives I wouldn't hesitate to learn FMA knife defenses.


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The OP way is not the only way and is not my way.
> I have worked with good grapplers and so have my good  wing chun sihings.



Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere.





Hanzou said:


> Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every year Sifu Augustine Fong has week long seminars in the beginning of May.


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Every year Sifu Augustine Fong has week long seminars in the beginning of May.



I didn't see any anti-grappling vids from Sifu Wong.

Feel free to post some. I'm interested in seeing them. Hopefully they're better than what's been shown so far.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere.


Since you are a fan of demanding video, I've gotta ask: have you linked to video of your own, with yourself in them?  I mean, how can the rest of us know with confidence that you actually have any of the skills you claim to back up all your talk?  I've seen plenty of people who talk a good talk and sound like they really know something.  Then I see their video and I know that they know nothing at all.

So, since you like to call for video from others, where are your own?


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> I didn't see any anti-grappling vids from Sifu Wong.
> 
> Feel free to post some. I'm interested in seeing them. Hopefully they're better than what's been shown so far.


---------------------------------------------------
Anti grappling is not a term that I use. Cheers and bye.


----------



## Dr.Smith

I'll say it again, no single martial art is going to have sufficient answers to all the situations that arise in a SD situation or an mma match, this is old hat with a painfully true reality we all have to accept at some point and that is that most if not all of us are not complete fighters.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Dr.Smith said:


> no single martial art is going to have sufficient answers to all the situations that arise in a SD situation or an mma match,...



Many years ago, the long fist GM Han Ching-Tan's students had a Chinese wrestling match against the Chinese wrestling GM Chang Tung-Sheng's students. In that match, all GM Han's students lose badly. If the GM Han's students had a boxing match against the GM Chang's student, I'm sure that GM Han's students would win in all matches.

If you want to learn the

- striking art (or anti-striking art), learn it from a striking art instructor.
- grappling art (or anti-grappling art), learn it from a grappling art instructor.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> Since you are a fan of demanding video, I've gotta ask: have you linked to video of your own, with yourself in them?  I mean, how can the rest of us know with confidence that you actually have any of the skills you claim to back up all your talk?  I've seen plenty of people who talk a good talk and sound like they really know something.  Then I see their video and I know that they know nothing at all.
> 
> So, since you like to call for video from others, where are your own?



I asked for a video because someone stated that they perform something that's unusual. I wanted to see this unusual act. That unusual act also pertained to the topic.

I'm a Bjj purple belt. What's unusual about that and how does it pertain to the topic?


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> I asked for a video because someone stated that they perform something that's unusual. I wanted to see this unusual act. That unusual act also pertained to the topic.
> 
> I'm a Bjj purple belt. What's unusual about that and how does it pertain to the topic?


You are asking others to show you their video.  I am asking the same of you.  Are you uncomfortable with that request?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> You are asking others to show you their video.  I am asking the same of you.  Are you uncomfortable with that request?



You didn't answer my question.

Again, I asked them for a video because it pertained to the topic, and it was unusual.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> I asked for a video because someone stated that they perform something that's unusual.


Huh!
I am beginning to question your reading comprehension skills. 
Joy didn't state he performs something unusual; he stated, "the OP way...,  is not my way". 
He also stated he has worked with good grapplers. In other words; he doesn't do what the guy in the video does.
I agree with him and you in what the guy in the video does is poor as for countering a grappler goes.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Huh!
> I am beginning to question your reading comprehension skills.
> Joy didn't state he performs something unusual; he stated, "the OP way...,  is not my way".
> He also stated he has worked with good grapplers. In other words; he doesn't do what the guy in the video does.
> I agree with him and you in what the guy in the video does is poor as for countering a grappler goes.



So is there any good anti grappling out there?

I mean I can defiantly post some videos of my instructors if you want. But it is difficult to get the right circumstance of myself sparring because we are a fight gym. And it is not the sort of information I give out.

And I may do a boxing at the end of the year. But otherwise I don't compete due to life getting in the way.


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> Huh!
> I am beginning to question your reading comprehension skills.
> Joy didn't state he performs something unusual; he stated, "the OP way...,  is not my way".
> He also stated he has worked with good grapplers. In other words; he doesn't do what the guy in the video does.
> I agree with him and you in what the guy in the video does is poor as for countering a grappler goes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. On his reading snafus- Fong became Wong. And sihing became sibling.
He is just badgering.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Huh!
> I am beginning to question your reading comprehension skills.
> Joy didn't state he performs something unusual; he stated, "the OP way...,  is not my way".
> He also stated he has worked with good grapplers. In other words; he doesn't do what the guy in the video does.
> I agree with him and you in what the guy in the video does is poor as for countering a grappler goes.



Uh he said that his Sifu performed solid WC anti-grappling, and performed this anti-grappling at various seminars.

Solid WC anti-grappling is the unusual component, because every iteration of WC anti-grappling shown up to this point has not been solid. I simply asked for a video of one of these seminars because I wish to see this better form of WC anti-grappling.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Uh he said that his Sifu performed solid WC anti-grappling, and performed this anti-grappling at various seminars.
> 
> Solid WC anti-grappling is the unusual component, because every iteration of WC anti-grappling shown up to this point has not been solid. I simply asked for a video of one of these seminars because I wish to see this better form of WC anti-grappling.


-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh!  Again-Try reading carefully and sort out who is saying what and when and to whom. I have never used the term "anti grappling" to describe what I do and I have not engaged you actively  in conversation on this thread-just pointed out inaccuracies  -sibling for sihing, Wong for
Fong.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> So is there any good anti grappling out there?


I don't know. I don't spent my time seeking out what others market or show.
I do spend a bit of what little free time I have here.


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Sheesh!  Again-Try reading carefully and sort out who is saying what and when and to whom. I have never used the term "anti grappling" to describe what I do and I have not engaged you actively  in conversation on this thread-just pointed out inaccuracies  -sibling for sihing, Wong for
> Fong.



Yet you brought it up in a thread pertaining anti-grappling, so while you don't use that terminology, clearly you're talking about WC techniques being used against a grappling opponent.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> Uh he said that his Sifu performed solid WC anti-grappling, and performed this anti-grappling at various seminars.
> 
> Solid WC anti-grappling is the unusual component, because every iteration of WC anti-grappling shown up to this point has not been solid. I simply asked for a video of one of these seminars because I wish to see this better form of WC anti-grappling.


Again there is this comprehension thing. 

He never said his Sifu performed solid WC anti-grappling he stated: "Every year Sifu Augustine Fong has week long seminars in the beginning of May." 
That was a response to your; 
"Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere."
He is telling you They Do Seminars. You want seminars, they have them. He has stated several times (not in this thread) he does not do videos.

If you are truly interested in what they do attend one.


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Again there is this comprehension thing.
> 
> He never said his Sifu performed solid WC anti-grappling he stated: "Every year Sifu Augustine Fong has week long seminars in the beginning of May."
> That was a response to your;
> "Well that's great. Maybe you and your "siblings" should do some seminars and videos to counter the garbage seen in the OP and elsewhere."
> He is telling you They Do Seminars. You want seminars, they have them. He has stated several times (not in this thread) he does not do videos.
> 
> If you are truly interested in what they do attend one.



You clearly didn't follow the entire conversation. He said that him and his siblings didn't perform anti-grappling like the OP, and he mentioned Sifu whatever as an example of this solid anti-grappling.

In any case, I'm clearly not going to get any examples of this solid anti-grappling, so I think it's best that we return to the original topic of why WC anti-grappling is ineffective and "horrific".


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> ...so I think it's best that we return to the original topic of why WC anti-grappling is ineffective and "horrific".



Actually, I'd be a lot more interested in what YOU would recommend that strikers (WC, boxers, karateka and Muay Thaiguys) should learn to escape and recover if taken to the ground. Put it this way, if you were invited to give a weekend seminar to a mixed group of strikers on this topic, what basics would _you_ share?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Actually, I'd be a lot more interested in what YOU would recommend that strikers (WC, boxers, karateka and Muay Thaiguys) should learn to escape and recover if taken to the ground. Put it this way, if you were invited to give a weekend seminar to a mixed group of strikers on this topic, what basics would _you_ share?



New thread?


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> Actually, I'd be a lot more interested in what YOU would recommend that strikers (WC, boxers, karateka and Muay Thaiguys) should learn to escape and recover if taken to the ground. Put it this way, if you were invited to give a weekend seminar to a mixed group of strikers on this topic, what basics would _you_ share?



Shrimping, Bridging, and the Upa escape. Simple and effective.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Shrimping, Bridging, and the Upa escape. Simple and effective.



There is also making striking as hard to deal with for a grappler as possible by figuring out what a grappler wants to achieve and exploit and denying him that.

(it was kind of the theory behind my grappling vs punching thread. But people decided to get butt hurt)

Here is some fun ideas. 

More distance. Fight from further back so shots become more desperate.

Shorter combinations so you don't get tied up or clinched up. Strike then turn off.

Don't lead with kicks or they get grabbed.

Don't guillotine choke,downward elbow,knee in response to takedowns. Instead cross face over hook sprawl. Or stuff the head into the ground.

Don't back up against the cage because you cant sprawl. 

Punch at the throat or chest. Still hurts and you cant change level through shots as easily.

And a fun new one. Don't go front leg to front leg because a grappler can make the shot a ton mote easily.


----------



## Marnetmar

^Wouldn't punching at the throat be illegal in an organized match or are we talking general self-defense here?


----------



## drop bear

Marnetmar said:


> ^Wouldn't punching at the throat be illegal in an organized match or are we talking general self-defense here?



Nope punch away.


----------



## PiedmontChun

I have done a little bit of groundwork training in my school; one of the things we learned was shrimping and bridging when mounted, though I had to look up "bjj bridging" to recognize it because it was referred to by a different name. Also, we did not call what we were learning "anti-grappling'. 

Like many posters who have already made the point, nearly all striking arts have techniques or methods to regain an upright position, and sometimes even dealing with a common thing like the mount or various takedowns. Are we going to do a witch hunt through every TMA and ridicule how something they teach would not be effective against a BJJ blue belt?

Saying "here is something you can use when an angry brawler tries to tackle you" or similar is a legitimate thing to say and more honest than implying the techniques are designed to be used against experienced grapplers. I would agree that if you want to out-grapple a grappler then there is no denying the value in just going and learning their game (i.e cross train). You might be surprised how many WC/WT would agree with that. If they are like me though, they don't want to grapple with a grappler though.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> Shrimping, Bridging, and the Upa escape. Simple and effective.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrimping, bridging and upa can work... unless  the opponent has well developed counters.
But good wing chun rather than fixed  techniques against fixed positions can depend  on
what we call body unification  and chum kiu principles of turning and biu gee principles. Imo developing good wing chun structure including hand structure and biu ma can prevent going to the ground in the first place.


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... including hand structure and biu ma can prevent going to the ground in the first place.


I agree with 'can' prevent however, in the reality of life 'can' also applies to the opponent taking the WC person to the ground or even the possibility of the WC person simply slipping, tripping, or being knocked to the ground. I know you understand that as well. It is what does the individual WC person have within his/her skill set that allows for good WC in that moment and during the time one is on the ground vs someone with experience in grappling on the ground.


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> I agree with 'can' prevent however, in the reality of life 'can' also applies to the opponent taking the WC person to the ground or even the possibility of the WC person simply slipping, tripping, or being knocked to the ground. I know you understand that as well. It is what does the individual WC person have within his/her skill set that allows for good WC in that moment and during the time one is on the ground vs someone with experience in grappling on the ground.[/QUOTE
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yup. The internalized "skill set" and the sense of coordinated movement are important factors.]


----------



## Hanzou

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shrimping, bridging and upa can work... unless  the opponent has well developed counters.



As a purple belt in Bjj, I still shrimp and bridge constantly. If you're afraid of dealing with someone who can counter you on that level, learn to grapple. It's really that simple.



> But good wing chun rather than fixed  techniques against fixed positions can depend  on
> what we call body unification  and chum kiu principles of turning and biu gee principles. Imo developing good wing chun structure including hand structure and biu ma can prevent going to the ground in the first place.



My concern is that the anti-grapple techniques I'm seeing aren't even based on realistic takedowns or positions. You can believe that "Bui ma" can stop a takedown, but are you practicing with real wrestlers/grapplers to test that out? The "takedowns" in the OP were simply awful, and they were countered with no contact hand techniques.

Get out some gear, get someone who wrestles, and really try to stop the takedown.


----------



## Kwan Sau

Hanzou said:


> My concern is that the anti-grapple techniques I'm seeing aren't even based on realistic takedowns



Why are you concerned since wing chun is not even the art you're learning?


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> My concern is that the anti-grapple techniques I'm seeing aren't even based on realistic takedowns or positions. You can believe that "Bui ma" can stop a takedown, but are you practicing with real wrestlers/grapplers to test that out? The "takedowns" in the OP were simply awful, and they were countered with no contact hand techniques.


This I agree with.
The techniques shown are terrible, the attacks are unrealistic, and the take-downs are, as you state, simply awful.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Again, I asked them for a video because it pertained to the topic, and it was unusual.


You didnt answer mine: where are your videos?  Does this request make you uncomfortable?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> There is also making striking as hard to deal with for a grappler as possible by figuring out what a grappler wants to achieve and exploit and denying him that.
> 
> (it was kind of the theory behind my grappling vs punching thread. But people decided to get butt hurt)
> 
> Here is some fun ideas.
> 
> More distance. Fight from further back so shots become more desperate.
> 
> Shorter combinations so you don't get tied up or clinched up. Strike then turn off.
> 
> Don't lead with kicks or they get grabbed.
> 
> Don't guillotine choke,downward elbow,knee in response to takedowns. Instead cross face over hook sprawl. Or stuff the head into the ground.
> 
> Don't back up against the cage because you cant sprawl.
> 
> Punch at the throat or chest. Still hurts and you cant change level through shots as easily.
> 
> And a fun new one. Don't go front leg to front leg because a grappler can make the shot a ton mote easily.



LoL! I thought Geezer wanted only the basics?

Nice list though. I agree.


----------



## Hanzou

Kwan Sau said:


> Why are you concerned since wing chun is not even the art you're learning?



Because the portrayal of grappling in those vids is rather insulting to the art I practice.


----------



## Steve

Guys, for what it's worth, I've seen some great examples of different philosophies and techniques being used effectively to counter grappling.  The examples of the chen tai chi guys sparring with various styles of grappling were great.  You could see the underlying philosophies in play, and also see how they could be very effective against a high level grappler.  It wasn't a Tai Chi guy using BJJ against Marcelo Garcia.  It was a tai chi guy using tai chi to counter BJJ. 

Based upon what I've seen, I've no doubt that WC can be effective against a trained grappler.  This presumes, though, that the techniques have been worked out on actual trained grapplers.  I'm not saying that the techniques have to be BJJ or Judo techniques.  Rather, that the WC techniques are tested and refined so that they reflect realistic defense against trained grapplers.

The problem in this thread, is that this video is not that, although I'm sure that this video doesn't reflect the way that many of you train.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> I asked for a video because someone stated that they perform something that's unusual. I wanted to see this unusual act. That unusual act also pertained to the topic.
> 
> I'm a Bjj purple belt. What's unusual about that and how does it pertain to the topic?



Since you have brought this up a couple times...... who is this purple belt in BJJ from, whose system Gracie, Machado, Cavalcanti, etc.?


----------



## PiedmontChun

Hanzou said:


> Because the portrayal of grappling in those vids is rather insulting to the art I practice.



Then you take it far too personal.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Since you have brought this up a couple times...... who is this purple belt in BJJ from, whose system Gracie, Machado, Cavalcanti, etc.?



Gracie. Mostly Relson.


----------



## Drose427

Hanzou said:


> Gracie. Mostly Relson.



I assume this will be his next question so I'll ask it

From him directly, or at least a school he frequents in order to keep standards, or one just using his name?

The latter can be questionable, if his standards arent upheld affiliations to him mean little. It happens a lot in just about all MA's, Bob trained under superfist, cuts all ties to open his own school, lets standards plummet.

To be fair, Relson does go around to his schools to check on them

But the latter happens too in many places and styles.

If you got it from him personally, or someone relatively closely tied to him,

'nuff said there


----------



## geezer

Drose427 said:


> I assume this will be his next question so I'll ask it
> 
> From him directly, or at least a school he frequents in order to keep standards, or one just using his name?



Hey, why even bring this up. _Hanzou _obviously loves BJJ. I can't imagine him training at a second rate school. Besides, how is that even relevant?

My only beef with _Hanzou _is his attitude. He sometimes comes accross as more critical than helpful. A _helpful _response to the OP would be to say something like, "Yeah, those techniques don't look reliable. Instead, I'd recommend working on proven stuff like shrimping, bridging, Upa, etc." Notice that he eventually _did _offer these suggestions.

I have plenty of friends who come across the same way. But they are honest. (Not always correct, but_ honest_) And that counts for a lot.


----------



## Xue Sheng

geezer said:


> Hey, why even bring this up. _Hanzou _obviously loves BJJ. I can't imagine him training at a second rate school. Besides, *how is that even relevant?*
> 
> My only beef with _Hanzou _is his attitude. He sometimes comes accross as more critical than helpful. A _helpful _response to the OP would be to say something like, "Yeah, those techniques don't look reliable. Instead, I'd recommend working on proven stuff like shrimping, bridging, Upa, etc." Notice that he eventually _did _offer these suggestions.
> 
> I have plenty of friends who come across the same way. But they are honest. (Not always correct, but_ honest_) And that counts for a lot.



He posted twice, in this thread, he was a purple belt in BJJ, I was wondering who it was from... that is all


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Here is some fun ideas.
> 
> More distance. Fight from further back so shots become more desperate.
> 
> Shorter combinations so you don't get tied up or clinched up. Strike then turn off.
> 
> Don't lead with kicks or they get grabbed.
> 
> Don't guillotine choke,downward elbow,knee in response to takedowns. Instead cross face over hook sprawl. Or stuff the head into the ground.
> 
> Don't back up against the cage because you cant sprawl.
> 
> Punch at the throat or chest. Still hurts and you cant change level through shots as easily.
> 
> And a fun new one. Don't go front leg to front leg because a grappler can make the shot a ton mote easily.


I would like to add, how to deal with

- head lock,
- double over hooks,
- double under hook,
- double arm wrap,
- bear hug,
- waist wrap,
- arms jam,
- arm drag,
- separate hands,
- ...

Most "anti-grappling" guys like to talk about "how to prevent a clinch" but not much on "how to get out of a clinch", or "how to counter in a clinch?"?

How do you get out of, or take advantage on (apply counter) the following situation?


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Hey, why even bring this up. _Hanzou _obviously loves BJJ. I can't imagine him training at a second rate school. Besides, how is that even relevant?
> 
> My only beef with _Hanzou _is his attitude. He sometimes comes accross as more critical than helpful. A _helpful _response to the OP would be to say something like, "Yeah, those techniques don't look reliable. Instead, I'd recommend working on proven stuff like shrimping, bridging, Upa, etc." Notice that he eventually _did _offer these suggestions.
> 
> I have plenty of friends who come across the same way. But they are honest. (Not always correct, but_ honest_) And that counts for a lot.


Maybe he can post some video of himself doing that stuff?  That's the kind of thing he asked for from others.  So maybe he can make a video and show us himself...


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Shrimping, Bridging, and the Upa escape. Simple and effective.


Make a video and show us what you mean.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Make a video and show us what you mean.


FC, if you're being serious and not just busting Hanzou's chops (which I fear is the case), there are a ton of excellent videos on the subject.  I can't access youtube right now, but I'm 100% confident that if you wanted to see some videos showing upa, shrimping and other techniques like this both in training and outside of training, you could find them very easily.


----------



## Steve

Speaking of videos, can anyone share some examples of what WC anti-grappling should look like?  I think we can all agree that the video in teh OP was not representative. 

I really can't say enough how awesome it was to see the sparring video between Marcelo Garcia and the Chen Tai Chi guy (don't know his name).  That was terrific.  Are there any examples of WC being used effectively to counter grappling that is better than what was posted in the OP?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> FC, if you're being serious and not just busting Hanzou's chops (which I fear is the case), there are a ton of excellent videos on the subject.  I can't access youtube right now, but I'm 100% confident that if you wanted to see some videos showing upa, shrimping and other techniques like this both in training and outside of training, you could find them very easily.


Id like to see Hanzou make a video and show us himself.  He asks others to do that, it's fair to ask the same of him.  

Is that busting his chops, or just asking the same of him that he asks of others?


----------



## Buka

Maybe I'm incorrect in this - but I only remember Hanzou asking for vid proof from Youtube concerning a technique or an example or whatever, and not asking anyone to actually vid themselves. As I remember (which is always an iffy thing in my head) those requests usually came from threads where other vids were shown or referenced to illustrate a point.

Also - I'm not trying to speak for the man, apologies if taken that way.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Id like to see Hanzou make a video and show us himself.  He asks others to do that, it's fair to ask the same of him.
> 
> Is that busting his chops, or just asking the same of him that he asks of others?


I think it's busting his chops.  I think he, like I, would simply like to see some WC anti-grappling done well.  I'd welcome it, and I'm sure Hanzou would, too.  The difference between him and me is that I am sure it exists.  I would guess that he's quite a bit more skeptical.


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> Speaking of videos, can anyone share some examples of what WC anti-grappling should look like?



Good question. I don't know of any. I remember Izzo put one up -- how to counter takedowns or something. Also "China Boxer" had some stuff out there, and both he and Izzo were wrestlers. Now I'm a WC guy, but _I generally look to grapplers for my info on grappling_.

...er ...does that make me a bad WC guy???


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> Speaking of videos, can anyone share some examples of what WC anti-grappling should look like?  I think we can all agree that the video in teh OP was not representative
> 
> Are there any examples of WC being used effectively to counter grappling that is better than what was posted in the OP?


Steve,
I can't say.
1. I don't spend much time checking out videos other than fight videos of my fighters opponents.
2. I don't do videos
3. The good WC instructors I know don't do videos.

I will say this, the people which I am associated with do a lot of ground work. In the wing chun association I am affiliated with a high level of skill in a grappling system is a requirement for becoming a full instructor. (Wrestling, Submission Wrestling, Sambo, Catch, BJJ, etc.)
One must not only be skilled (you will have to perform from a standing position and from the ground) you will have to show your proficiency vs a ground person. Not someone playing the part but vs a wrestler or a BJJ player. Many within our wc association are purple or brown and a few are BB's in BJJ or coach level in CSW. So there are wc people out there than know how to grapple. As to Anti-Grappling we don't use that term or express anything as anti-grappling.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I think it's busting his chops.  I think he, like I, would simply like to see some WC anti-grappling done well.  I'd welcome it, and I'm sure Hanzou would, too.  The difference between him and me is that I am sure it exists.  I would guess that he's quite a bit more skeptical.



He asked an earlier poster to see his videos. I asked the same of Hanzou.  Why is this a problem?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> He asked an earlier poster to see his videos. I asked the same of Hanzou.  Why is this a problem?


I must have missed this post you're referring to.  If you could point out the post where he is insisting on a video of a particular poster, I'd appreciate it.  If he did that, I'd say he's busting that poster's chops, too, and in my opinion, should also let it go.  If he's asked for video demonstrating a technique, I don't see a problem with it.   As I said before, that's a video I'd like to see, too.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I must have missed this post you're referring to.  If you could point out the post where he is insisting on a video of a particular poster, I'd appreciate it.  If he did that, I'd say he's busting that poster's chops, too, and in my opinion, should also let it go.  If he's asked for video demonstrating a technique, I don't see a problem with it.   As I said before, that's a video I'd like to see, too.


Post number 45 in this thread.  I've seen it elsewhere too.  

Then he suggested some solutions of his own, I'd like to see him do them.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would like to add, how to deal with
> 
> - head lock,
> - double over hooks,
> - double under hook,
> - double arm wrap,
> - bear hug,
> - waist wrap,
> - arms jam,
> - arm drag,
> - separate hands,
> - ...
> 
> Most "anti-grappling" guys like to talk about "how to prevent a clinch" but not much on "how to get out of a clinch", or "how to counter in a clinch?"?
> 
> How do you get out of, or take advantage on (apply counter) the following situation?



Best way too escape double underhooks is don't get in double underhooks.

Elbows in tyrannosaurus arms. A stance more like a amateur boxer that brings the elbows forwards.

The big issue with flared elbows is not the double under. But, it is a combination of double under and guillotine. Head goes under the arm pit. And it can break your neck.

If you are in double unders against my advice. Forearm in throat wizzer and re feed the arm. So you wind up in a normal clinch.


----------



## ShotoNoob

geezer said:


> ...BTW I have encountered this same individual on a couple of occasions since and can say that he seems to be an excellent instructor as well as a superior athlete, and he was quite friendly to me. So, there's no criticism intended. I'm just pointing out one reason why people are so compliant!


|
Why would you need to apologize for testing / demonstrating the efficacy of what the instructor was presenting?


----------



## ShotoNoob

K-man said:


> ...Since then I have had time to think more about it. People bag TMAs for not adapting to new concepts. Here we have a style, WC, adding an element to their training which, for better or worse, they have labeled 'anti-grappling'. Now I might have thought the detractors might have welcomed that as an improvement, but no, it is 'hilarious'.


|
I thought your comment was excellent.  Bring in a broader perspective.
|
I'm not grappler, I found the vid of value.  I've seen similar moves in traditional karate schools.
|
They are not trying to replicate BJJ.  BJJ is by all accounts an excellent grappling system.
\
As the same time i reject an outright condemnation of the WC vid as useless.  I think the expertise here @ MT gets in the way of practitioners exploring some tactics on their own.
|
Quite frankly, I burst the Gracie BJJ bubble here.  The Rolles Gracie loss recently versus standard MMA striking... and to say much more sophisticated WC practitioner couldn't stop a Gracie, come on...  The WC instructor put up a vid to show some of the versatility of WC which I believe is more formidable against grapplers than the grappling aficionados either realize or admit...


----------



## drop bear

PiedmontChun said:


> I have done a little bit of groundwork training in my school; one of the things we learned was shrimping and bridging when mounted, though I had to look up "bjj bridging" to recognize it because it was referred to by a different name. Also, we did not call what we were learning "anti-grappling'.
> 
> Like many posters who have already made the point, nearly all striking arts have techniques or methods to regain an upright position, and sometimes even dealing with a common thing like the mount or various takedowns. Are we going to do a witch hunt through every TMA and ridicule how something they teach would not be effective against a BJJ blue belt?
> 
> Saying "here is something you can use when an angry brawler tries to tackle you" or similar is a legitimate thing to say and more honest than implying the techniques are designed to be used against experienced grapplers. I would agree that if you want to out-grapple a grappler then there is no denying the value in just going and learning their game (i.e cross train). You might be surprised how many WC/WT would agree with that. If they are like me though, they don't want to grapple with a grappler though.



Ok. Here is the issue. There is a lot of simple stuff you could learn that would work against a brawler that is the same simple stuff used in a ufc match.(just done better)

And some people instead of doing that do something craptastic for absolutely no good reason. 

And for people who know the difference they tend to yell at this point.

"do a simple high percentage counter and stop fluffing about with whatever the hell you are trying to do."

Then you get all this baggage they want to chain punch they want to eye gouge or apply the principles of nasi goreng. They want to do ever bloody thing except a basic high percentage counter.

And when you suggest this baggage is unhelpful will get you bashed by a person who has done a day of bjj and seems to be for the benefit of feeding the ego of the instructor. You get accused of style bashing.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's true. When I posted my "anti-striking" strategy by using "rhino guard", I got similar concerns as, "It won't work against a good boxer ...".


|
I would never want to use this.  Not to say the "rhino guard" isn't an alternative.
|
I would think in an initial encounter, it just might be the instinctual guard to buy one some time.  It's about exploring workable alternatives....


----------



## Hanzou

I have no idea why this thread is suddenly about my training history instead of the topic at hand. Again, I only request videos if someone is making an unusual claim, such as competent WC anti-grappling. I want to see it. I don't want to see a member perform a basic WC technique.

Clearly some posters have an axe to grind. I'm simply interested in continuing discussing this topic which is very interesting. Why is it interesting? Because you have respected WC instructors performing clearly bad MA, and it would be interesting to hear WC exponents explain why this is the case. Further, it would be interesting to hear why WC exponents feel the need to create this dubious sub-system in the first place.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I have no idea why this thread is suddenly about my training history instead of the topic at hand. Again, I only request videos if someone is making an unusual claim, such as competent WC anti-grappling. I want to see it. I don't want to see a member perform a basic WC technique.
> 
> Clearly some posters have an axe to grind. I'm simply interested in continuing discussing this topic which is very interesting. Why is it interesting? Because you have respected WC instructors performing clearly bad MA, and it would be interesting to hear WC exponents explain why this is the case. Further, it would be interesting to hear why WC exponents feel the need to create this dubious sub-system in the first place.



Ok. Why you do it is the same reason we do it.

Because you may need some simple strategies to slow down good grapplers while you are getting on with the business of punching their heads in.

And you don't have ten years to learn things like the snake guard.

Where it becomes an issue is if the instructor uses this idea as an ego feeding method. (And mma guys do this as well)

So that they never want to look like a crap grappler and therefore a crap martial artist and instead change the goal posts.


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Quite frankly, I burst the Gracie BJJ bubble here.  The Rolles Gracie loss recently versus standard MMA striking... and to say much more sophisticated WC practitioner couldn't stop a Gracie, come on...  The WC instructor put up a vid to show some of the versatility of WC which I believe is more formidable against grapplers than the grappling aficionados either realize or admit...



You're forgetting an important point here; Wing Chun/Tsun instructors are purposely teaching this because they feel threatened by grappling for some reason.

And frankly the stuff displayed in the OP is not formidable against anyone. The methodology is terrible because you're attempting to counter a high contact training method with a no-contact training method.

What does that mean?

Simply put, grapplers are training under a full-contact method. They are actually trained in full resistance where a person is attempting to stop them from taking them down. So a Judo guy performing a five point throw in training is a Judo guy actually throwing someone utilizing resistance. Further, that Judoka getting thrown is more aware of the type of throw being used against him than someone not trained in Judo would be. For example, a Judo black belt is more aware of getting caught in a shoulder throw than someone who has never trained in Judo.

MMA and (some) Bjj guys go a step further and add striking to their training. So a MMA guy going in a for a takedown is used to a person full blast punching and kicking him while he goes for entry.

What did we see in that WC anti-grappling video? We saw half-arsed takedown attempts that didn't even make contact, and we saw a bunch of air punches that also didn't make contact. The reaction to those blows were completely staged and silly. At no point are you experiencing an actual takedown, and at no point are you getting a real reaction. That's not going to be much use against someone used to grabbing someone and slamming them down while that person is actually punching or kicking them. Perhaps actual WC is formidable against a grappler, but that junk shown in the video was not.


----------



## Vajramusti

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------
> 
> Piggy backing witha followup. I dont do videos but I am well aware of dangers from various knds of grapplers. FWIW -here are some photos of two situations witha  grappler coming in- middle level and low. The grappler isGreco- Roman all American. He was headed for yje Olympic eliminations till a vcipous knee twist sent him to surgery.
> He is fine now  and among other things jumps out of panes in the Army.
> 
> http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/chum_kiu_form.pdf
> 
> http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/chum_kiu_form.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> see particularly  photos 2a, 2b and 4a, 4b and 4c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vajramusti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I dont do videos. But I dont use  the label anti grappling.And I dont stay on  the ground if I  end up on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> I use chum  kiiu and biu gee attacks
> until I get up
Click to expand...


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> I have no idea why this thread is suddenly about my training history instead of the topic at hand.


Great question.   Let's try to get back on topic, folks. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> Quite frankly, I burst the Gracie BJJ bubble here. The Rolles Gracie loss recently versus standard MMA striking... and to say much more sophisticated WC practitioner couldn't stop a Gracie, come on... The WC instructor put up a vid to show some of the versatility of WC which I believe is more formidable against grapplers than the grappling aficionados either realize or admit...



You are about ten years to late. Sakuraba had already burst the Gracie bubble.

Yes bjj can be beaten and beaten with striking.

But nobody is using this anti grapple nonsense like in the OP,s video.

You are using one example to make a huge leap of faith.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> I have no idea why this thread is suddenly about my training history instead of the topic at hand.


If nobody even pays attention on you, you are ignored and you are nobody. The more people who disagree with you and ask something out of you, the more that you should be proud of yourself. 

If a grappler has to spend years of hard training time to develop his anti-grappling skill, I just don't believe that any striker can develop any "anti-grappling" skill without going through the similar training.

Besides the ground grappling, one will need to master the following principles just to be able to deal with a "stand up wrestler". It's not a simple task even just for the stand up game. I'm sure there will be more principles needed for the BJJ ground game as well.

撕(Si) - Tearing
崩(Beng) - Cracking
捅(Tong) - Striking push
褪(tun) - Hand pushing
肘(Zhou) - Elbow pressing
蓋(Gai) - Covering hands
攞(Lou)- Pulling hands
搖(Yao) - Body-shaking hands
捯(Dao) - Reverse arm-holding
抖(Dou) – Shaking
分(Fen) - Separate hands
掖(Ye) -  Hand tucking
引(Yin) - Arm guiding
捧(Peng) -  Arm raising
架(Jia) -  Elbow Locking
圈(Quan) – Under hook
抄(Chao) -  Over hook
抹(Mo) - Wiping
偏(Pian) – Head circling
夾(Jia) – Clamping head
摘(Zai) – Helmet removing
摀(Wu) – Face covering
速(Su) – Forehead push
墬(Zhui) - Sticking drop
撈 (Lao) – Leg seize
環(Huan) – Neck surrounding
托(Tuo) – Chin pushing
封(Feng) – Throat/waist blocking
撒(Sa) - Casting
飄(Piao) - Floating hand
吸(XI) - Sticky
摟(LOU) - Outer hook
勾(GOU) - Upper hook
判(PAN) - Trap
削(XIAO) - Sickle hooking
蹲(DUN) - Drop down
跳(TIAO) - Hop
磨(MO) - Spin
轟(HONG) - Herd
摇(YAO) - Shake


----------



## Vajramusti

drop bear said:


> You are about ten years to late. Sakuraba had already burst the Gracie bubble.
> 
> Yes bjj can be beaten and beaten with striking.
> 
> But nobody is using this anti grapple nonsense like in the OP,s video.
> 
> You are using one example to make a huge leap of faith.


---------------------------------------------Indian concepts of the body is relevant here. Sakuraba was Karl Gotch's student and Gotch did and taught Indian dunds, baitakhs. mudgar clubs, mace and stomach rotations, The best gracie- Roycs's oldest brother did yoga


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> ...Clearly some posters have an axe to grind. I'm simply interested in continuing discussing this topic which is very interesting. Why is it interesting? Because you have respected WC instructors performing clearly bad MA, and it would be interesting to hear WC exponents explain why this is the case. Further, it would be interesting to hear why WC exponents feel the need to create this dubious sub-system in the first place.


|
I can acede to the quality of training criticism.  Not all @ MT are so highly trained in grappling.  Like me.
|
I found the vid interesting as a presentation of some ideas re the grappling scenario.  Not as a substitute for the BJJ program or later progressive introduction of resistance training.
|
Anyway, it's not anywhere near as bad at the Gracie promotion vids promising 'experts' who were completely inept against the sudden incarnation of BJJ / grappling a la Gracies.   Shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass / grappling  house....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...If a grappler has to spend years of hard training time to develop his anti-grappling skill, I just don't believe that any striker can develop any "anti-grappling" skill without going through the similar training.


|
The qualification I would add is that not necessarily grappling, is the answer to the grapple r....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> ...Simply put, grapplers are training under a full-contact method. They are actually trained in full resistance where a person is attempting to stop them from taking them down. So a Judo guy performing a five point throw in training is a Judo guy actually throwing someone utilizing resistance. Further, that Judoka getting thrown is more aware of the type of throw being used against him than someone not trained in Judo would be. For example, a Judo black belt is more aware of getting caught in a shoulder throw than someone who has never trained in Judo.
> 
> MMA and (some) Bjj guys go a step further and add striking to their training. So a MMA guy going in a for a takedown is used to a person full blast punching and kicking him while he goes for entry.


|
In your quote, I took out the objections to the vid; the grappler audience here can slice & dice that.
|
Via reality training, I concur fully about the points you've made above.  I've alway been a fan of MMA for 'reality testing.'  Even in Judo though, my understanding is they do 'fits' & drills.  It's not pure randori....
|
That said, the time & place for full contact / heavy resistance training in traditional karate--there are different approaches to forming a skill base first.  I've talked on that elsewhere....
|
I'll look at the WC vid again....  I recognize the import of your stated position above, the WC  practioners should too...
|
Edit: Marked you post 'like.'


----------



## Hanzou

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> I can acede to the quality of training criticism.  Not all @ MT are so highly trained in grappling.  Like me.
> |
> I found the vid interesting as a presentation of some ideas re the grappling scenario.  Not as a substitute for the BJJ program or later progressive introduction of resistance training.
> |
> Anyway, it's not anywhere near as bad at the Gracie promotion vids promising 'experts' who were completely inept against the sudden incarnation of BJJ / grappling a la Gracies.   Shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass / grappling  house....



I don't know why you keep bringing up the Gracies, or their promotional vids from the 1990s. No one is talking about them, and no one is saying that Gjj is invincible. In fact, in modern MA, Gjj/Bjj is just one of several grappling systems that has rose to prominence since the first UFC and the rising popularity of MMA. 

Clearly it shook members of the WC and other MA communities enough to create utterly bogus and silly sub-systems to attempt to counter it.

However, since YOU brought it up, let's discuss the differences. On one hand you have people actually fighting each other in challenge matches, and the other you have a demonstration where no contact is made. 

I would LOVE to to see anti-grappling utilized against a MMA fighter or a grappler. I mean why not? They claim that WC anti-grappling is effective against skilled grapplers.

You see, the Gracies said that their system worked against skilled martial artists, and then proceeded to fight various skilled martial artists to prove their claims. WC anti-grappling can't claim the same thing. So no one is throwing stones anywhere, there's reality and then there's nonsense.


----------



## drop bear

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------Indian concepts of the body is relevant here. Sakuraba was Karl Gotch's student and Gotch did and taught Indian dunds, baitakhs. mudgar clubs, mace and stomach rotations, The best gracie- Roycs's oldest brother did yoga



And by all accounts Karl gotch could also wrestle.


----------



## Steve

Karl Gotch was an interesting guy.  Read an article about him a few years back, and my impression is that he would've been a real force in modern MMA.  Ahead of his time.


----------



## Vajramusti

drop bear said:


> And by all accounts Karl gotch could also wrestle.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of  course- he was a great wrestler


----------



## Danny T

Well I've spent approx. 2 hours today viewing some 'Anti-Grappling' videos. Viewed videos by different instructors but I did not view everything available. Of those I did, in none of them did the instructor/s state anything about anti grappling being effective against a trained grappler. In most there were references that there is always the possibility of a fight going to the ground and one needs to be able to survive long enough to get back to a standing position preferably. In a couple the viewers were even encouraged to get with grapplers and train.(smart thing to do)

That said, what was shown in all of the videos I viewed, the so called anti-grappling techniques were (I'm being kind) poor with many being terrible and completely a waste of time other than looking good to the uninformed. They were presented in a demo form but mostly the actions shown if attempted to be used against an aggressive attacker will mostly fail.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> to be used against an aggressive attacker ...


If I want to test my

- "head punch defense", I would find a boxer to test it.
- "roundhouse kick defense", I would find a MT guy to test it.
- "single leg defense", I would find a wrestler to test it.
- "hip throw defense", I would find a Judoka to test it.
- ...

IMO, a striker should concern about "not to be taken down" before he should concern about "how to play the ground game". So if your opponent tries to take you down with "hip throw", how will you deal with it? Of course you can punch like a machine gun and kill every person in your punching range. As long as you can prevent your opponent from getting a successful clinch, your striking will be very effective. The concern is if your opponent gets the clinch that he wants, your ability to deal with that clinch will be critical. What kind training do you need after a clinch is made?


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> Well I've spent approx. 2 hours today viewing some 'Anti-Grappling' videos. Viewed videos by different instructors but I did not view everything available. Of those I did, in none of them did the instructor/s state anything about anti grappling being effective against a trained grappler. In most there were references that there is always the possibility of a fight going to the ground and one needs to be able to survive long enough to get back to a standing position preferably. In a couple the viewers were even encouraged to get with grapplers and train.(smart thing to do)
> .



It's stated on the website that the vids are counters against "advanced grapplers".





> Description
> 
> *Victor Gutierrez - Wing Tsun DVD 09 - Anti-Grappling and Chi Gerk*
> 
> In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun’ers.
> 
> *He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure.*
> 
> This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun
> 
> Format: DVD-R NTSC
> Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
> Other info: All region DVD
> 
> Features



Probably just trying to sell DVDs.


----------



## Jake104

The OP video is very similar to this. Both seem like after thoughts to systems of fighting lacking in certain areas...


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> It's stated on the website that the vids are counters against "advanced grapplers".
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just trying to sell DVDs.


 That ain't good, and that's what causes concern.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> ...However, since YOU brought it up, let's discuss the differences. On one hand you have people actually fighting each other in challenge matches, and the other you have a demonstration where no contact is made.


|
Thanks for the notoriety....



Hanzou said:


> I would LOVE to to see anti-grappling utilized against a MMA fighter or a grappler. I mean why not? They claim that WC anti-grappling is effective against skilled grapplers.


|
Right, we have a dearth of TMA competitors demonstrating so in the MMA arena, particularly WC.  I personally can't fix that....
|
Maybe you can reach out to some WC org's to address the issue.


Hanzou said:


> You see, the Gracies said that their system worked against skilled martial artists, and then proceeded to fight various skilled martial artists to prove their claims. WC anti-grappling can't claim the same thing. So no one is throwing stones anywhere, there's reality and then there's nonsense.


|
Don't buy the Gracie track-record.  Do respect the BJJ system developed by Helio G.


----------



## ShotoNoob

Hanzou said:


> I don't know why you keep bringing up the Gracies, or their promotional vids from the 1990s. No one is talking about them, and no one is saying that Gjj is invincible. In fact, in modern MA, Gjj/Bjj is just one of several grappling systems that has rose to prominence since the first UFC and the rising popularity of MMA.


|
I bring up the Gracie's 'cause there's this mystique that traditional karate does not provide is training to stop grapplers.
|


Hanzou said:


> Clearly it shook members of the WC and other MA communities enough to create utterly bogus and silly sub-systems to attempt to counter it.


|
_*BTW, there is a recent promotional YT Video of Stephen "Wonderboy" Thomspon talking about the use of the karate stance in MMA.  He flatly states that when he entered MMA, all his training partners could take him down from his karate stance at will.  He had to make some adjustments.... can't say what those were....*_
|
The YT Vid is a promotion of his next upcoming fight with Jake Ellenberger.... in July I believe.
\
Any how, this is where the grappling mystique of superiority over karate traditional stances is given wing.... this kind of actual conflict experience....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ShotoNoob said:


> _*all his training partners could take him down from his karate stance at will.  He had to make some adjustments.... can't say what those were....*_.


From a wrestler point of view, If you use

- wide stance, you opponent can take you down by "single leg".
- narrow stance, your opponent can take you down by "double legs".

Since you can still apply counters against your opponent's "single leg", but you can't apply any counters against your opponent's "double legs", IMO, the Karate side way lower stance is still better than the narrow higher forward stance. At least, your opponent may get your leading leg, but he can't get your back leg. As long as you can pull your leading leg back fast enough to avoid your opponent's "single leg" shooting, you are safe.

Even if your opponent may grab on your leading leg, if you can stick your leading leg between his legs, you can glue your body on top of your opponent's body, you can then wait for the right opportunity to attack.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> The OP video is very similar to this. Both seem like after thoughts to systems of fighting lacking in certain areas...



Except of course almost nothing works unarmed vs knife.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Except of course almost nothing works unarmed vs knife.


Agreed! Point of videos is still the same. Both are selling fantasy. The Gracies is more dangerous IMO. So Wing Chun has no ground game and BJJ and JJJ has no weapon game on the ground? Actually not true. The grappling/ground fighting I'm involved with is not sport fighting and yes we deal with weapons. The Wing Chun I'm involved with also deals with the ground/grappling. Since it's principal based and not technique based. Ideas overlap.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Agreed! Point of videos is still the same. Both are selling fantasy. The Gracies is more dangerous IMO. So Wing Chun has no ground game and BJJ and JJJ has no weapon game on the ground? Actually not true. The grappling/ground fighting I'm involved with is not sport fighting and yes we deal with weapons. The Wing Chun I'm involved with also deals with the ground. Since it's principal based and not technique based. Ideas overlap.



Some do some outright conflict. If you are trying to wrestle using striking principles it mostly doesn't work.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Some do some outright conflict. If you are trying to wrestle using striking principles it mostly doesn't work.


Combats is combat! If your using wrestling in combat why can't you punch? Striking principles? Like what?   Forward  energy and elbows in? Sounds like wrestling principles?


----------



## Jake104

What about centerline and COG? Grappling uses these ideas? No?


----------



## Jake104

I can use my tan sao to hip stop an under hook throw? Then use my LAN Sao with my turning horse to get the opponents back and choke?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Combats is combat! If your using wrestling in combat why can't you punch? Striking principles? Like what?   Forward  energy and elbows in? Sounds like wrestling principles?



So you are going to punch your way off your back?

And for wrestling you forgot arms down heavy hips and chin up.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> What about centerline and COG? Grappling uses these ideas? No?



Not really. You are normally attacking a base so it would not be the center line. Ankle picks and such.


----------



## Jake104

Are you going to have arms down and chin up In combat? Of coarse not. I'm not going to punch my way off my back. I'm going to use the same principles and ideas I'd use in the clinch, standing, sitting,whatever. Forward energy redirecting trapping. Not trapping in the traditional sense but rather in the wrestling sense of the word. But wait. Wrestlers/ grapplers trap????


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Not really. You are normally attacking a base so it would not be the center line. Ankle picks and such.


Wing Chun attacks root? Base, root sounds kind of similar.?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I can use my tan sao to hip stop an under hook throw? Then use my LAN Sao with my turning horse to get the opponents back and choke?



Potentially. But there are better methods.





The guy you are fighting would have to be pretty static.


----------



## Jake104

You can't tell me Wrestling doesn't have COG?


drop bear said:


> Potentially. But there are better methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy you are fighting would have to be pretty static.


Tan in the vid is how beginners learn it. Tan Sao is really an idea? You can move all you like. Under hook over hook. It really makes no difference. Why? Because the idea stays the same.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Are you going to have arms down and chin up In combat? Of coarse not. I'm not going to punch my way off my back. I'm going to use the same principles and ideas I'd use in the clinch, standing, sitting,whatever. Forward energy redirecting trapping. Not trapping in the traditional sense but rather in the wrestling sense of the word. But wait. Wrestlers/ grapplers trap????



For the time it takes to sprawl out of a takedown yes. Because that is the most effective method of stopping it.

So are you going to bother with ideas like shrimping and sit outs? Or are they technique driven and not concept driven?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> You can't tell me Wrestling doesn't have COG?
> 
> Tan in the vid is how beginners learn it. Tan Sao is really an idea? You can move all you like. Under hook over hook. It really makes no difference. Why? Because the idea stays the same.



Center of gravity is a thing not a concept. 

Ok. How does tan say become an overhook or underhook?


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> For the time it takes to sprawl out of a takedown yes. Because that is the most effective method of stopping it.
> 
> So are you going to bother with ideas like shrimping and sit outs? Or are they technique driven and not concept driven?


Depends on who's doing it and how you look at it? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Good fighting is good fighting!


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Center of gravity is a thing not a concept.
> 
> Ok. How does tan say become an overhook or underhook?


I didn't say a tan becomes an under hook or over hook? But since your asking? Here's a tan over hook to under hook example. We are in the clinch I'm on the outside. I drop my elbow with forward  intent. Now I'm shoulder cranking you. You use a technique to relieve the pressure on your shoulder. But I still have a foward bead on you. I'm tracking your energy . Guess what then I go into a different lock. Sounds like lock flow?


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Center of gravity is a thing not a concept.
> 
> Ok. How does tan say become an overhook or underhook?


COG by itself is a "thing" . The concept part comes in when you are trying to do something with the thing. Move it, control it manipulate it? Or is that technique?


----------



## Jake104

Jake104 said:


> I didn't say a tan becomes an under hook or over hook? But since your asking? Here's a tan over hook to under hook example. We are in the clinch I'm on the outside. I drop my elbow with forward  intent. Now I'm shoulder cranking you. You use a technique to relieve the pressure on your shoulder. But I still have a foward bead on you. I'm tracking your energy . Guess what then I go into a different lock. Sounds like lock flow?


Here's my original example of using a tan to stop an under hook throw.

We are in the clinch. You arm drag my right arm with your left. Then you step in under hook that same arm with your right arm. Then you lift push your hip/ butt and throw. Let's rewind to when you just under hooked right to right. You start to push your butt/hip into me to break my structure and lift me? I press your left hip with my full body elbow in tan. Guess what ain't happening. I end up breaking your structure before you break mine. Oh yeah, plus I'll have your back as a bonus of not being thrown. Theres two examples.


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> The OP video is very similar to this. Both seem like after thoughts to systems of fighting lacking in certain areas...



1. That's pretty standard unarmed knife defense. It's pretty much found in all MA systems.

2. As far as I know, those guys aren't selling a knife defense DVD, and saying that their unarmed knife defense system works against expert knife users.


----------



## Jake104

Sounds like that's what they are saying. At the end of the video they say to go to there combative site to learn more.


----------



## Jake104

Just admit both videos are fantasy. Why make excuses? Im owning the WC video as such. Why can't you grapplers just own that as fantasy? I'm not saying the Gracie's suck at fighting. Just knife defense. Lol


----------



## Steve

Jake104 said:


> Here's my original example of using a tan for an under hook throw.
> 
> We are in the clinch. You arm drag my right arm with your left. Then you step in under hook that same arm with your right arm. Then you lift push your hip/ butt and throw. Let's rewind to when you just under hooked right to right. You start to push your butt/hip into me to break my structure and lift me? I press your left hip with my full body elbow in tan. Guess what ain't happening. I end up breaking your structure before you break mine. Oh yeah, plus I'll have your back as a bonus of not being thrown. Theres two examples.


Jake, do you work these things out with guys who are experienced, trained grapplers?


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> Just admit both videos are fantasy. Why make excuses? Im owning the WC video as such. Why can't you grapplers just own that as fantasy?



Uh, because it's not the same thing. Bjj knife defense is just as "effective" as the unarmed knife defenses you see in every MA.


----------



## Jake104

Steve said:


> Jake, do you work these things out with guys who are experienced, trained grapplers?


Yes! Otherwise I WOULD NOT of posted. Wrestlers Grapplers and MMA. I train with DTEMMA. I like grappling. I just think there's a lot of overlapping ideas at play. In all MA.


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> Uh, because it's not the same thing. Bjj knife defense is just as "effective" as the unarmed knife defenses you see in every MA.


Ok don't own it then. It's all good?


----------



## Jake104

It's fantasy. So BJJ has a little fantasy in it too? Just like the fantasy grappling defense in Op


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Jake104 said:


> Here's my original example of using a tan to stop an under hook throw.
> 
> We are in the clinch. You arm drag my right arm with your left. Then you step in under hook that same arm with your right arm. Then you lift push your hip/ butt and throw. Let's rewind to when you just under hooked right to right. You start to push your butt/hip into me to break my structure and lift me? I press your left hip with my full body elbow in tan. Guess what ain't happening. I end up breaking your structure before you break mine. Oh yeah, plus I'll have your back as a bonus of not being thrown. Theres two examples.


It seems like you may talk about something "similar to" this:

In

- WC, you may call it "Tan Shou",
- Taij, it's called "diagonal fly",
- Shuai Chiao, it's called "Kao".

IMO, it's the best counter to be used to deal with the "arm drag". I would call this the true "anti-grappling".


----------



## Steve

Jake104 said:


> Yes! Otherwise I WOULD NOT of posted. Wrestlers Grapplers and MMA. I train with DTEMMA.


Whoa.   Don't yell at me, tough guy.   Just asking a question.  

So, Surely, since you train in MMA, you know that there is a big difference between a sound technique and the ability to execute that technique.   What I worry about is when strikers talk about techniques that sound good on paper, but no one has the experience or ability to execute them.


----------



## Jake104

Steve said:


> Whoa.   Don't yell at me, tough guy.   Just asking a question.
> 
> So, Surely, since you train in MMA, you know that there is a big difference between a sound technique and the ability to execute that technique.   What I worry about is when strikers talk about techniques that sound good on paper, but no one has the experience or ability to execute them.


I'm not yelling. I like you Steve! You are right. You have to test it's. My first post on this thread was. Make sure you use real grapplers and not impersonators. We are on the same page I think.!!!!!!'lol


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It seems like you may talk about something "similar to" this:
> 
> In
> 
> - WC, you may call it "Tan Shou",
> - Taij, it's called "diagonal fly",
> - Shuai Chiao, it's called "Kao".
> 
> IMO, it's the best counter to be used to deal with the "arm drag". I would call this the true "anti-grappling".


Good forward intent goes a long way in stopping things. I was describing a over the  shoulder type throw. But same thing. It really wouldn't matter what throw, if the forward energy was good. In essence that's what the guy in video was using. An idea.


----------



## Jake104

Ok I'm purple belt in here now. Its time to spend time with the wife now. Until we meet again!


----------



## Vajramusti

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It seems like you may talk about something "similar to" this:
> 
> In
> 
> - WC, you may call it "Tan Shou",
> - Taij, it's called "diagonal fly",
> - Shuai Chiao, it's called "Kao".
> 
> IMO, it's the best counter to be used to deal with the "arm drag". I would call this the true "anti-grappling".


-----------------------------
a good demo


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Yes! Otherwise I WOULD NOT of posted. Wrestlers Grapplers and MMA. I train with DTEMMA. I like grappling. I just think there's a lot of overlapping ideas at play. In all MA.



There is. But you are working backwards. You are trying to make wrestling and ground work fit the principles that you are familiar with.

Rather than taking on board the principles that have been developed by the people who are good at it.

This is what fundamentally makes anti grappling the disaster it generally is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> taking on board the principles that have been developed by the people who are good at it.


This is the main point of this discussion. There is nothing wrong to study the "anti-grappling" from the grappling art. I'm sure a wrestler would also like to learn the striking art from any striking art system. Since the grappling art has spent a long time to develop the "anti-grappling", the accumulated knowledge is stored in a huge database already. Why not just take that information out of the existing database. There is no need to re-create it.

A simple example, in stand up wrestling, if your opponent wants to wrap your arm with

- "over hook", all you need is to rotate your arm in the same direction as your opponent's arm does.
- "under hook", all you need is to straight your arm vertically upward.

Your opponent's arm will just rotate into the thin air, not be able to touch your arm, hook on nothing, and fail his "over hook" or "under hook". Since your grappling art opponent fails to obtain his effective "clinch", your powerful head punch can still dominate the fight.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> There is. But you are working backwards. You are trying to make wrestling and ground work fit the principles that you are familiar with.
> 
> Rather than taking on board the principles that have been developed by the people who are good at it.
> 
> This is what fundamentally makes anti grappling the disaster it generally is.


Sorry but this makes no sense? You agree there is, but then I'm working it backwards? How do you know I'm not working it forwards? I train with real grapplers. Good ones at that. They must be playing a joke on me by teaching me backwards? Dang it! They must be just messing with the Wing Chun dude again?

I'm just going to leave by saying this. There is a big world out there beyond what you see on Youtube. I have experienced some really good martial arts of all varieties in person. Some of those arts I might of had a bad impression from what I may have seen online. Only to find out how wrong I was, once I had seen it done in person by a competent practitioner of that art. People I meet FTF usually have that same surprised look on there face when I show Wing Chun in a not so internetty way. I've also experienced some excellent WC in person..Different approaches, I didn't even knew existed.


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the main point of this discussion. There is nothing wrong to study the "anti-grappling" from the grappling art. I'm sure a wrestler would also like to learn the striking art from any striking art system. Since the grappling art has spent a long time to develop the "anti-grappling", the accumulated knowledge is stored in a huge database already. Why not just take that information out of the existing database. There is no need to re-create it.
> 
> A simple example, in stand up wrestling, if your opponent wants to wrap your arm with
> 
> - "over hook", all you need is to rotate your arm in the same direction as your opponent's arm does.
> - "under hook", all you need is to straight your arm vertically upward.
> 
> Your opponent's arm will just rotate into the thin air, not be able to touch your arm, hook on nothing, and fail his "over hook" or "under hook". Since your grappling art opponent fails to obtain his effective "clinch", your powerful head punch can still dominate the fight.


Good post!


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> Sorry but this makes no sense? You agree there is, but then I'm working it backwards? How do you know I'm not working it forwards? I train with real grapplers. Good ones at that. They must be playing a joke on me by teaching me backwards? Dang it! They must be just messing with the Wing Chun dude again?
> 
> I'm just going to leave by saying this. There is a big world out there beyond what you see on Youtube. I have experienced some really good martial arts of all varieties in person. Some of those arts I might of had a bad impression from what I may have seen online. Only to find out how wrong I was, once I had seen it done in person by a competent practitioner of that art. People I meet FTF usually have that same surprised look on there face when I show Wing Chun in a not so internetty way. I've also experienced some excellent WC in person..Different approaches, I didn't even knew existed.



No one is saying that Wing Chun itself is bad, useless, deficient, whatever. We're simply talking about those particular examples shown in the OP. The people in those vids are clueless when it comes to techniques against grapplers. To then go around and say that those bad techniques would work against advanced grapplers is even worse.

Keep practicing with the grapplers. Just doing that alone is 100x better than what the people in those videos have done.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> The people in those vids are clueless when it comes to techniques against grapplers...
> 
> ...Keep practicing with the grapplers. Just doing that alone is 100x better than what the people in those videos have done.


In full agreement.


----------



## Jake104

ME TOO! 

Not yelling I just talk loud!


----------



## ShotoNoob

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From a wrestler point of view, If you use
> 
> - wide stance, you opponent can take you down by "single leg".
> - narrow stance, your opponent can take you down by "double legs".


|
Thanks for the quick lesson, which I didn't replicate your whole quote.  I'm certain that some principled instruction from someone such as yourself, combined with the principle of tai sabaki enshrined throughout traditional a karate training, some of the ant-grappling skills would come to karate life rather quickly.
|
Of course one must have paid attention to the karate curriculum proper, which most claiming to practice karate do not.  Too busy showing off how they can bust up that heavy bag.  One reason why I never do heavy bag training....


----------



## ShotoNoob

I've also shone the light on why sport karate fighters are prone to take downs....
|
Solution, don't train karate like a physical sport.  Karate is a mental discipline, based on principles, not a menu of different ways to do reflexively do layups....


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Sorry but this makes no sense? You agree there is, but then I'm working it backwards? How do you know I'm not working it forwards? I train with real grapplers. Good ones at that. They must be playing a joke on me by teaching me backwards? Dang it! They must be just messing with the Wing Chun dude again?
> 
> I'm just going to leave by saying this. There is a big world out there beyond what you see on Youtube. I have experienced some really good martial arts of all varieties in person. Some of those arts I might of had a bad impression from what I may have seen online. Only to find out how wrong I was, once I had seen it done in person by a competent practitioner of that art. People I meet FTF usually have that same surprised look on there face when I show Wing Chun in a not so internetty way. I've also experienced some excellent WC in person..Different approaches, I didn't even knew existed.



Ok. Backwards because instead of finding out what works and making it wing chun. You are trying to force wing chun principles on every other situation.

Now if there are elements of wing chun that works. Then good. I am happy to adopt them and learn from anybody who is any good.

What I wont do is mangle a working wing chun technique because it does not fit in with mma concepts. If it does the job it is the tool for the Job.

No baggage no preconceptions.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> I've also shone the light on why sport karate fighters are prone to take downs....
> |
> Solution, don't train karate like a physical sport.  Karate is a mental discipline, based on principles, not a menu of different ways to do reflexively do layups....



Because if they don't train to defend takedowns they will have no idea what they are doing.

The same as if we said karate is not all that good if you are drowning. Because if they don't train to swim. So on and so on.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Ok. Backwards because instead of finding out what works and making it wing chun. You are trying to force wing chun principles on every other situation.



Actually, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think we are talking about more universal fighting concepts as taught in the DTE system.

Jake has a long background in WC (different branch from mine). He also trains DTE MMA. I also train some DTE, and it's concepts have helped my WC and my Eskrima. They also apply to grappling. They are not "WC" concepts. They are_ martial arts concepts_, . DTE is very functional, and the various coaches at the gym specialize in striking, grappling and weapons. Wherever possible they test with full-on resistance. Nothing like the stuff in the OP. Honest.

OK. I admit it. My DTE experience is doing something to my WC, evolving it into a more functional art for me ... maybe kinda similar to what you see with _Alan Orr's_ WC? So I guess that actually does relate back to the OP.

Yes, like the OP I guess you could say the whole thing _'Orrifies _me!


----------



## Kwan Sau

geezer said:


> Actually, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think we are talking about more universal fighting concepts as taught in the DTE system.
> 
> Jake has a long background in WC (different branch from mine). He also trains DTE MMA. I also train some DTE, and it's concepts have helped my WC and my Eskrima. They also apply to grappling. They are not "WC" concepts. They are_ martial arts concepts_, . DTE is very functional, and the various coaches at the gym specialize in striking, grappling and weapons. Wherever possible they test with full-on resistance. Nothing like the stuff in the OP. Honest.
> 
> OK. I admit it. My DTE experience is doing something to my WC, evolving it into a more functional art for me ... maybe kinda similar to what you see with _Alan Orr's_ WC? So I guess that actually does relate back to the OP.
> 
> Yes, like the OP I guess you could say the whole thing _'Orrifies _me!



Sorry, but what does DTE mean (?)


----------



## Danny T

Kwan Sau said:


> Sorry, but what does DTE mean (?)


I believe it was Direct Torres Eskrima and became Direct Torres Extreme  - Fighting Arts


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> I believe it was Direct Torres Eskrima and became Direct Torres Extreme  - Fighting Arts



Quite so. 

I don't get to train with the DTE guys regularly and I claim no rank in their system, but whenever I can I get together with them (like this morning). It gives me a really interesting outside perspective on my personal WC and Eskrima. Martin Torres and I got to know each other while training with Rene Latosa back in the early 80s. Martin is an exceptional martial artist and I really appreciate some of the insights he's shared with me.


----------



## Jake104

It was fun today Geezer. I got to show Geezer my infamous tan sao today. Haha! Most deadliest tan sao ever!


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Quite so.
> 
> I don't get to train with the DTE guys regularly and I claim no rank in their system, but whenever I can I get together with them (like this morning). It gives me a really interesting outside perspective on my personal WC and Eskrima. Martin Torres and I got to know each other while training with Rene Latosa back in the early 80s. Martin is an exceptional martial artist and I really appreciate some of the insights he's shared with me.



Who have they got fighting?


----------



## Jake104

There's a Facebook page DTE MMA check it out for yourself. They've Coached fighters for Rage in the cage, boxing and recently in April at Grand Canyon State Jiujitsu  tournament in Phoenix. The Fighters did really well winning there classes or at least making the podium. Other then that I can't  name drop because sport fighting is not really my world. I just know they do very well in competition.


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> Because if they don't train to defend takedowns they will have no idea what they are doing.
> 
> The same as if we said karate is not all that good if you are drowning. Because if they don't train to swim. So on and so on.


|
That's exactly like I mean in principle.  Putting on an open workout that highlights striking at a partner holding focus mights, like that will prepare your for an MMA match.  Silly repetition of sport practice.
|
I'm drowning in the stupidity of those practicing convention over principle....


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> There's a Facebook page DTE MMA check it out for yourself. They've Coached fighters for Rage in the cage, boxing and recently in April at Grand Canyon State Jiujitsu  tournament in Phoenix. The Fighters did really well winning there classes or at least making the podium. Other then that I can't  name drop because sport fighting is not really my world. I just know they do very well in competition.



Ok. Their mma instructor is haroon lais apparently. If my google fu is sound.

Just so you know.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> That's exactly like I mean in principle.  Putting on an open workout that highlights striking at a partner holding focus mights, like that will prepare your for an MMA match.  Silly repetition of sport practice.
> |
> I'm drowning in the stupidity of those practicing convention over principle....



Except that is the training method of successful martial artists. So we are looking at proven training methods and reflecting that.

If someone started dancing the Macarena instead of pad work and then started winning fights. Without preconceptions we would be seriously looking into dancing the Macarena.

It would have nothing to do with trying to get results from a concept we are hanging. On to in spite of evidence otherwise.

That is why when we look at that op vid. Wing chun has chain punching. So the solution to grappling must be chain punching. Otherwise it isn't chun.

It is the kung fu solution. And where sometime it might be incidentally correct. You cant guarantee it. 

And when you are talking concepts like anti grappling you cant be sometimes or sort of correct. You don't ha e the depth of training to get away with it. (a lot of times you don't have the depth of training to get away with bjj principles)

You need the simplest highest percentage movements that you can get away with. Because for the main that is all you are going to get to use.


----------



## Phobius

9 pages of mostly non-constructive comments. Albeit some very interesting discussions here and there...

I just had to add my thoughts on this matter:
YouTube warriors learn martial arts and in this case anti-grappling from a video. Martial art students everywhere learn from studying and practising together in class or with friends. Then why do so many people believe that A. There is a simple key to solve any and every puzzel? B. That the promotional video might not simply display marketing techniques rather than anti-grappling techniques?

I doubt any of the masters selling videos be it for GJJ or WC believes that anyone would learn useful stuff from a video alone. In such a case the display may only be for a beginner training technique to get people used to moving around in a three dimensional environment. Everyone gets physical once they start doing grappling for the first time, and some limits will be quickly identified. Dealing with those limits will give new behavior and as such your class constantly develops. No magical key to unlocking some hidden secret.

So my own experience from the matter is that if you want to counter someone in their own field you train that field more than they do. Otherwise become better than them with transitions through more practise, or perhaps learn ground game better than they know striking game. So on so forth... usually the fight end up in the game people feel most uncomfortable with anyway so try and stay alive long enough to end up in your opponents worst game instead.

If there is a real fight expect to feel pain, just hope you feel less pain than your opponent.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> You need the simplest highest percentage movements that you can get away with. Because for the main that is all you are going to get to use.


I like this part of your post. You lost me at, " if someone started dancing the marcarena". I prefer the cha cha.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> 9 pages of mostly non-constructive comments.


Let's try some "constructive" comment here. If you want to develop "anti-grappling" ability, the 1st step is you have to know:

how to

- avoid clinch (have already been suggested in one of my previous post),
- deal with clinch (if you fail to avoid it),

Since the most common clinchs (from a wrestler point of view) are:

1. head lock,
2. over hook,
3. under hook,
4. waist wrap,

When your opponent applies an

- head lock, or over hook on you, since his arm is above your arm, it gives you a chance to apply under hook, or waist wrap on him. So 3 and 4 can be used to anti 1 and 2.
- under hook, or waist wrap on you, since his arm is under your arm, it gives you a chance to apply head lock, or over hook on him. So 1 and 2 can be used to anti 3 and 4.

Since the chance is always 50-50 between the technique and it's counters, there is no advantage to use one to against another. You hope that you can have more knowledge, experience, and ability in dealing with the clinch situation than your opponent can.

After you have the ability to do "anti clinch", you then try to develop the ability to do

- anti take down, and then
- anti ground game.

IMO, this is the best path that can lead you to reach to your goal "anti grappling".


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I like this part of your post. You lost me at, " if someone started dancing the marcarena". I prefer the cha cha.



Yeah especially for anti grapple or self defence because you tend to run really lean in regards to techniques learnt.


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> Except that is the training method of successful martial artists. So we are looking at proven training methods and reflecting that.


|
You mean SOME MARTIAL ARTISTS.   I have never struck a focus mitt.  uck, uck, uck.



drop bear said:


> If someone started dancing the Macarena instead of pad work and then started winning fights. Without preconceptions we would be seriously looking into dancing the Macarena.


|
I see we have expert tread-keeper-goers here.  To go K-Man's way for a moment, the Okinawan karate masters have a number of tools other than, ugh, focus mitts....  So if you are a big karate-learning aid buff... why not go to the horses mouth, so to speak?



drop bear said:


> It would have nothing to do with trying to get results from a concept we are hanging. On to in spite of evidence otherwise.


 Repetively striking a focus mitt sure didn't prepare all those Gracie-foe-striking-experts in those Gracie demo vids.  Talk about results, geeshhhhh...



drop bear said:


> That is why when we look at that op vid. Wing chun has chain punching. So the solution to grappling must be chain punching. Otherwise it isn't chun.


|
I like your thought process here.  Yet to evaluate TMA correctly, we have to get into the style proper.  I've observed WC to Shotokan to Tang Soo Do having a grappling component.  More serious study of these styles reveals priciples & tactics, not just a certain technique.  Iain A.'s work here is perfect illustration, although very advanced IMO.



drop bear said:


> It is the kung fu solution. And where sometime it might be incidentally correct. You cant guarantee it.


|
OK as a generality, so limited as such....



drop bear said:


> And when you are talking concepts like anti grappling you cant be sometimes or sort of correct. You don't ha e the depth of training to get away with it. (a lot of times you don't have the depth of training to get away with bjj principles)


|
Ok, as a generality.  I'm not so bent out of shape over the WC video.  You have a huge grappling following here, that have their own brand of expertise.  It's for them to say, still a personal evaluation.



drop bear said:


> You need the simplest highest percentage movements that you can get away with. Because for the main that is all you are going to get to use.


|
I think also this is a very good advice from a practical standpoint.  Yet the broader standpoint from TMA is to develop a highly versatile skill base that adapts to wide-ranging & unfolding situations as they arise.  Such an approach will provide the highest percentage of success because it is based on principled skill, rather than on technical-dependant skill.
|
Good luck with that...


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> You mean SOME MARTIAL ARTISTS. I have never struck a focus mitt. uck, uck, uck.



Successful martial artists. Which look. I am sure you are happy with what you do. But you cant compare yourself to a top tier fighter.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> Ok, as a generality. I'm not so bent out of shape over the WC video. You have a huge grappling following here, that have their own brand of expertise. It's for them to say, still a personal evaluation.



Ok. There are two ways to make grappling work. 

1. Do the same thing the grapplers do.

2. Do your own thing and beat up a ton of good grapplers with it.


----------



## yak sao

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I believe that if you fight someone at their game, and they are better at it than you are, then they win.

This is why I don't see the value in learning how to grapple to be able to beat a grappler, any more than I see the value in learning how to box so that I can outbox my attacker should he be a boxer, or immerse myself in TKD so that I can outkick my attacker should he be a kicker.

Cherry picking your way through various fighting systems, gleaning various techniques here and there will not make you a complete fighter.
Picking up a few wrestling tricks will never give me the skills needed to out wrestle someone who is well versed in BJJ or catch wrestling, or maybe even someone who wrestled on their high school wrestling team.

The better approach for me has been to take my training in WT and pressure test it to make sure it is sound and will hold up under fire.
Agree with it or not, like it or not, I have used anti grappling concepts numerous times against all types of grapplers, ranging from high school wrestlers, to catch wrestlers to judoka to BJJ people to good ol' boys who could break me in half.
It's taken a lot of sweat, blood, trial and error, pulled muscles, wrenched shoulders and bruised ego but after all that, I can tell you that  anti grappling concepts work.


----------



## drop bear

yak sao said:


> Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I believe that if you fight someone at their game, and they are better at it than you are, then they win.
> 
> This is why I don't see the value in learning how to grapple to be able to beat a grappler, any more than I see the value in learning how to box so that I can outbox my attacker should he be a boxer, or immerse myself in TKD so that I can outkick my attacker should he be a kicker.
> 
> Cherry picking your way through various fighting systems, gleaning various techniques here and there will not make you a complete fighter.
> Picking up a few wrestling tricks will never give me the skills needed to out wrestle someone who is well versed in BJJ or catch wrestling, or maybe even someone who wrestled on their high school wrestling team.
> 
> The better approach for me has been to take my training in WT and pressure test it to make sure it is sound and will hold up under fire.
> Agree with it or not, like it or not, I have used anti grappling concepts numerous times against all types of grapplers, ranging from high school wrestlers, to catch wrestlers to judoka to BJJ people to good ol' boys who could break me in half.
> It's taken a lot of sweat, blood, trial and error, pulled muscles, wrenched shoulders and bruised ego but after all that, I can tell you that  anti grappling concepts work.



Which anti grappling concepts?

Otherwise we could be talking about anything.


----------



## drop bear

On the vein of the anti grapple. I am playing around with these concepts at the moment.






So instead of escaping top control and reguarding. I will go to turtle and stand up.

(ok this is still just grappling buy hopefully you get my point)


----------



## drop bear

And while I am here. This is the only bear hug defence I have found that actually works some of the time.


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> And while I am here. This is the only bear hug defence I have found that actually works some of the time.


|
Great Post Drop Bear!!!!
|
Someone getting a strong bear hug on you.... you're in big trouble.
|
2 Points from traditional karate which also have a self defense routine for the bear hug in the black-belt level curriculum:
|
Point A.  you have to move fast, 'cause just as you pointed out in your teaching video, the opponent can easily manhandle you in several aspects....  Once he has that bear hug on; he's essentially in control....  it's imperative to change that dynamic right away....
|
Point B. The traditional karate answer uses a tactic that accomplished multiple SD objectives.  Very K-Man bunkai-like.  Maybe that's why  the Okinawan Master's developed such....
|
I've been visiting a Tang Soo Do school; saw a TSD version of anti-bear hug SD technique--think it's being taught @ green belt levels....


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> Successful martial artists. Which look. I am sure you are happy with what you do. But you cant compare yourself to a top tier fighter.


|
Drop Bear, I'm guilty, Guilty, GUILTY.... OF NOT BEING 1-DIMENSIONAL.
|
What are you trying to do, recruit keyboard warrior and MMA-wanabees onto the MT forum???


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Great Post Drop Bear!!!!
> |
> Someone getting a strong bear hug on you.... you're in big trouble.
> |
> 2 Points from traditional karate which also have a self defense routine for the bear hug in the black-belt level curriculum:
> |
> Point A.  you have to move fast, 'cause just as you pointed out in your teaching video, the opponent can easily manhandle you in several aspects....  Once he has that bear hug on; he's essentially in control....  it's imperative to change that dynamic right away....
> |
> Point B. The traditional karate answer uses a tactic that accomplished multiple SD objectives.  Very K-Man bunkai-like.  Maybe that's why  the Okinawan Master's developed such....
> |
> I've been visiting a Tang Soo Do school; saw a TSD version of anti-bear hug SD technique--think it's being taught @ green belt levels....



What methods are you referring to?


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Drop Bear, I'm guilty, Guilty, GUILTY.... OF NOT BEING 1-DIMENSIONAL.
> |
> What are you trying to do, recruit keyboard warrior and MMA-wanabees onto the MT forum???



No. Just putting your comment in context.

Pad work is hardly a mma only thing.


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> Successful martial artists. Which look. I am sure you are happy with what you do. But you cant compare yourself to a top tier fighter.


|
Take Machida, everyone for the most part loves Machida.  I love Machida.
|
Yet Machida has made extensive use of MMA-boxing training, including so-called expert boxer-MMA striker trainers routinely holding YES, FOCUS MITTS.
|
What's the huge strategic hole in Machida's karate-based MMA standup game?  FAILURE TO STRIKE OPPONENTS & END FIGHTS _*CONSISTENTLY*_....
|
Machida went 5 rounds against Weidman and got the snot beat out of himself.  Machida landed technically scoring-strikes on Rockhold then whiffed and got clocked with a hook (K-MAN, remember I cautioned about convential karate kumite  vulnerable to the hook.), then got GNP'd, knocked loopy by Rockhold's elbow to the side of his head...!!!!
|
You can say Machida's use of focus mitts, and his 'expert' MMA trainors use of focus mitts is a huge endorsement of same.  Yet massive fail when the fat-is-the-fire....
|
I train the PRINCIPLES of the traditional karate curriculum for RESULTS.  I don't rely on EVERLAST, or BAD BOY, or CORNERMAN who trained me with FOCUS MITTS. Don't need visual aids or talking pieces when I go into kumite....


----------



## ShotoNoob

SOMEONE POST THE JAPANESE KARATE WORD FOR BOARDBREAKING:
|
The following post is Shotokan karate form[IMO], you know the Japanese karate so many complain about as "impractical."




|
So the lesson is presented in the traditional karate curriculum.  Can the karate practitioner take the concept and study & learn & apply that lesson?  For all it's crummy characteristics, you can't say Shotokan karate, the most widespread karate style out there, doesn'tpresent the lesson & working objective to developing the capability to disable your opponent decisively....
|
My august contribution to the ant-grappling T....
|
BTW: the purpose of the warmup and dry runs when Debbie does the front kick break, is to develop that little-talked about traditional karate mental discipline called KIME.
|
Take that Matt Thorton &Co.  Take that, focus mitt user....
|
EDIT: Debbie's head on the punch break is proper form....


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> What methods are you referring to?


|
don't know if I should say.  I mean these are taught in every dojo, now Tang Soo Do school I've attended.  Not a big secret by any means...
|
Hey, Drop Bear, thanks for bringing in the wrestling demo vids.  This is material that is not typically presented in a traditional karate classes and I for one found  those vids very valuable....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Now I now the 'hard rollers' are wanting to pick on Debbie & the ProForce board.  So, for the bigger boys, Shotokan karate has an anti-grappling answer as you duck you head in for that takedown:




|
The sought for dynamic of mind & body(whole) coming together as one under the aegis of KIME.


----------



## ShotoNoob

We see in some of the above Shotokan board-breakers samples of improper kihon physical form, and a bad habit of so much physicality presented in the Shotokan karate conventionally.  It's not real bad, yet they lean the head forward from the neck, trying to physically force the body to break the board.  Head & neck should remain upright & erect 'cause it is the body unity from the ground up that produces the power.  The purpose of the head is to produce & direct KIME @ the target.
|
Why I never took BJJ....  good luck with that....


----------



## ShotoNoob

drop bear said:


> No. Just putting your comment in context.
> 
> Pad work is hardly a mma only thing.


|
Right, karate schools use them all the time.  That why guys like you can point out how as k-man would say, MODERN karate is no good.
|
We are then training the body alone to re actively strike a phony, soft, pliable target.  What we traditional karateka want is the KIME to snap the attacker's wrist, trying grappling now....  or crack assailant's ribs--try manhandling me in a bear hug now.  Or better yet, reverse punch smash the grappler's face in as you come in, dropping your to your knees ripe for a finishing front kick to the jaw (broken, teeth laying all over the floor).
|
The traditional karate anti-grappling in theory (or WC) for that matter, is the KIME to go with a response wherever you go with your grappling...
|
Good luck against that....


----------



## ShotoNoob

If one wishes to train karate effectively, it's not about full contact sparring.  It's about reading, understanding & practicing the ENTIRE traditional karate curriculum.  Including the grappling-SD defense skills presented.
|
Not doing, "look how ronda rousey & her big name Muay thai MMA big name coach are using SO-AND-SO focus mitts"--monkey-see-monkey do.
|
Little Debbie is off to a great SHOTOKAN KARATE start, IMHO.... @ beating Ronda Rousey the traditional karate way.  None of Rousey's MMA-focus mitt / MMA-grappling opponents are faring too well....  Some really massive fails there....


----------



## geezer

Man,_ Shoto-Noob_ has me totally confused with this last chain of posts. I'm not getting what "little Debbie"" and her cute board breaks have to do with grappling, auntie grappling, uncle grappling.... On the other hand, I do appreciate Drop Bear's wrestling clips. That's easy to understand.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Man,_ Shoto-Noob_ has me totally confused with this last chain of posts. I'm not getting what "little Debbie"" and her cute board breaks have to do with grappling, auntie grappling, uncle grappling.... On the other hand, I do appreciate Drop Bear's wrestling clips. That's easy to understand.



No dramas. There are areas that wrestling works a bit better for mma. And why we tend to do sub wrestling rather than bjj.

But most anti grapple people when they are not making stuff up are getting their grappling knowledge from bjj. And sometimes the focus can be a bit wrong.

Isolating that idea into one move would be the double leg over arm bar from mount. I almost would not do that as a self defence technique. But it is incredibly effective and a very common submission.

Now with all of that. Bjj incorporates wrestling when they can.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> There are areas that wrestling works a bit better for mma.


If we look at the following clips, we can see that the Chinese wrestling may work even better than the western wrestling for MMA. The reason are:

- how to apply striking, and
- how to deal with striking,

are already integrated into the Chinese wrestling training. The problem is the Chinese wrestling has not yet became a popular MA system in the western world.


----------



## ShotoNoob

geezer said:


> Man,_ Shoto-Noob_ has me totally confused with this last chain of posts. I'm not getting what "little Debbie"" and her cute board breaks have to do with grappling, auntie grappling, uncle grappling.... On the other hand, I do appreciate Drop Bear's wrestling clips. That's easy to understand.


|
Yeah, 'cause you're a technical guy who's into physical technique.  Then there's criticism of WC anti-grappling based on it's presentation of physical technique, a picture of that.
|
If you want to look at physical technique and sell people on that, you're not evaluating TMA through the proper lens....


----------



## ShotoNoob

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we look at the following clips, we can see that the Chinese wrestling may work even better than the western wrestling for MMA. The reason are:
> 
> - how to apply striking, and
> - how to deal with striking,
> 
> are already integrated into the Chinese wrestling training. The problem is the Chinese wrestling has not yet became a popular MA system in the western world.


|
I always thought the CMA were more integrated than the traditional karates as a whole.  Having said that, the reason they are not popular (IMO) is the American MA preoccupation with physical drills & physical technique over learning the underlying system.
|
So you're looking for trouble in presenting CMA when viewers can't get there hands around the "little debbie" lesson.
|
Good luck with that....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here are some examples that if you can knock down your opponent with your kicks or punches, you don't need any "anti-grappling". But if your kicks and punches fail to knock down your opponent then "anti-grappling" will come into place.


----------



## Phobius

Not sure I get the Debbie talk, a little girl doing a good focused strike, in terms of anti-grappling.
Since I believe the discussion is about anti-grappling and not how to prevent grappling from occurring it seems out of place. If you can knock down your opponent before he may ever get you into a clinch then 'anti-grappling' perhaps is not needed. I still do not see a technique that would avoid grappling be called anti-grappling.

Having a technique that avoids a scenario is not the same as having a technique that may help resolve a scenario. The first may be perfect when fighting but since most of us just prepare with practise I guess most want to train in resolving situation instead.

Sorry if I misunderstood the whole discussion about Debbie, very possible...

I see much value and interest in these discussions, especially since I myself want to learn more about transitioning between them unhindered.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> Having a technique that avoids a scenario is not the same as having a technique that may help resolve a scenario.


Agree! For example, when your opponent tries to get a clinch on you, you can

- break that clinch, move back, and continue your striking game. or
- take advantage on that clinch, and ... In order to be able to do so, you will need some grappling knowledge/experience.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Not sure I get the Debbie talk, a little girl doing a good focused strike, in terms of anti-grappling.
> Since I believe the discussion is about anti-grappling and not how to prevent grappling from occurring it seems out of place. If you can knock down your opponent before he may ever get you into a clinch then 'anti-grappling' perhaps is not needed. I still do not see a technique that would avoid grappling be called anti-grappling.
> 
> Having a technique that avoids a scenario is not the same as having a technique that may help resolve a scenario. The first may be perfect when fighting but since most of us just prepare with practise I guess most want to train in resolving situation instead.
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood the whole discussion about Debbie, very possible...
> 
> I see much value and interest in these discussions, especially since I myself want to learn more about transitioning between them unhindered.



Grappling occurs before the clinch. Like striking occurs before the punch or kick.

Because you set these things up. You don't just wade forwards and hope.

So anti grappling occurs at that set up stage as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Grappling occurs before the clinch. Like striking occurs before the punch or kick.
> 
> Because you set these things up. You don't just wade forwards and hope.
> 
> So anti grappling occurs at that set up stage as well.


That is called to "have a plan" which is the opposite of the concept of "formless".

When you execute your "plan",

1. A kick is used to set up a punch.
2. A punch is used to set up a clinch.
3. A clinch is used to set up a take down.
4. A take down is used to set up a ...






Of course you can by pass 1 and 2 and go to 3 directly. Here is an example and I like to call it "octopus" strategy. The "leg bridge" is used to prevent your opponent's kick.


----------



## drop bear

ShotoNoob said:


> If one wishes to train karate effectively, it's not about full contact sparring.  It's about reading, understanding & practicing the ENTIRE traditional karate curriculum.  Including the grappling-SD defense skills presented.
> |
> Not doing, "look how ronda rousey & her big name Muay thai MMA big name coach are using SO-AND-SO focus mitts"--monkey-see-monkey do.
> |
> Little Debbie is off to a great SHOTOKAN KARATE start, IMHO.... @ beating Ronda Rousey the traditional karate way.  None of Rousey's MMA-focus mitt / MMA-grappling opponents are faring too well....  Some really massive fails there....



Ok. I do know what you are talking about.

And nobody is going to beat ronda rousey with your karate superpowers.

Fighting is physical. You keep saying there is some sort of mental edge that you train that nobody else trains. But it is fooey.

There is no evidence of it working.

A person who looses a fight using another method is not evidence your method works. You have to prove your method based on its own merits. And it does not have any.

I am sorry but it just doesn't.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That is called to "have a plan" which is the opposite of the concept of "formless".
> 
> When you execute your "plan",
> 
> 1. A kick is used to set up a punch.
> 2. A punch is used to set up a clinch.
> 3. A clinch is used to set up a take down.
> 4. A take down is used to set up a arm bar, leg bar, choke, ...
> 5. ...
> 
> Of course if you are good, you can by pass 1 and 2 and go to 3 directly. Here is an example and I like to call it "octopus" strategy.



All formless is a bit silly though. Sort of.

I will use driving a car as the metaphor. The plan is your destination. Then you make other plans like navigating traffic. The formlessness is the gear changes,clutch,breaks and so on.

You need both at once.


----------



## geezer

ShotoNoob said:


> Yeah, 'cause you're a technical guy who's into physical technique.


Huh?  I thought I was a WC guy.




ShotoNoob said:


> Then there's criticism of WC anti-grappling based on it's presentation of physical technique, a picture of that.



Here's a picture of that:




T
|


ShotoNoob said:


> If you want to look at physical technique and sell people on that, you're not evaluating TMA through the proper lens....



OK. what's the _proper_ lens?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sun Zi said, "You have to understand yourself, and also understand your opponent, you can then win every battles." If grapplers have to understand jab, cross, hook, uppercut, should strikers also have to understand what grapplers may do?


----------



## ShotoNoob

geezer said:


> Huh?  I thought I was a WC guy.
> OK. what's the _proper_ lens?


|
Not taking oneself so seriously.  I can see there's a lot invested in the SD approach here @ MT.
|
I offered a perspective that's not your track.... Bailing T.


----------



## geezer

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Not taking oneself so seriously.  I can see there's a lot invested in the SD approach here @ MT.
> |
> I offered a perspective that's not your track.... Bailing T.



OK. I promise not to take myself so seriously.

Seriously!!!    *

*


----------



## r'n'r

Well, like it or not, in a 1-on-1 fight(which I understand not everyone is training for), unless you can knock someone out before they take you down or prevent them from doing so, you are only as good as your BJJ/Judo/wrestling. And most MA's are terrible when it comes to ground fighting. I for one am glad to see people realize this and improve the system accordingly. After all, WC is not technique based, but principle based.


----------



## Hanzou

r'n'r said:


> Well, like it or not, in a 1-on-1 fight(which I understand not everyone is training for), unless you can knock someone out before they take you down or prevent them from doing so, you are only as good as your BJJ/Judo/wrestling. And most MA's are terrible when it comes to ground fighting. I for one am glad to see people realize this and improve the system accordingly. After all, WC is not technique based, but principle based.



The problem is that the techniques aren't sound, and the training method is pretty useless.

Again, if you're so worried about grappling that you need to construct an entire sub-system to address it, you should probably learn grappling first. Preferably Bjj, since its so popular and technical.


----------



## Vajramusti

Hanzou said:


> The problem is that the techniques aren't sound, and the training method is pretty useless.
> 
> Again, if you're so worried about grappling that you need to construct an entire sub-system to address it, you should probably learn grappling first. Preferably Bjj, since its so popular and technical.


----------



## Vajramusti

------------------------------------------------------------------

??????????????????????????


----------



## Kwan Sau

and welcome to page 12....


----------



## Xue Sheng

Interesting thing is, we are at page 12 and I am still not exactly sure what "Anti-grappling" is supposed to be. Is it more grappling or is it something else. Look at some videos from Tim Cartmel and you see basic grappling to combat grappling, look at the wing chun group I use to train with and they had kicks from the ground, as to many CMA styles, that are used to prevent ground fighting if you fall down, look at an old CMA view of things and you get Qinna is the defense against grappling and if you listen to the guy I briefly trained JKD with and he said he hated grappling but he knew enough about it to knew how to get off the ground....

Now if we can get by the jabs, put downs and other useless bit of this thread.......What exactly is anti-grappling supposed to be?


----------



## Vajramusti

Xue Sheng said:


> Interesting thing is, we are at page 12 and I am still not exactly sure what "Anti-grappling" is supposed to be. Is it more grappling or is it something else. Look at some videos from Tim Cartmel and you see basic grappling to combat grappling, look at the wing chun group I use to train with and they had kicks from the ground, as to many CMA styles, that are used to prevent ground fighting if you fall down, look at an old CMA view of things and you get Qinna is the defense against grappling and if you listen to the guy I briefly trained JKD with and he said he hated grappling but he knew enough about it to knew how to get off the ground....
> 
> Now if we can get by the jabs, put downs and other useless bit of this thread.......What exactly is anti-grappling supposed to be?


-------------------------------------------------
Another wandering thread. But- anti grappling is an empty label means different things to different people.
I am repeating from past posts. In the wing chun that I do-the better folks work on "body unity". Wing chun prefers not to deliberately go to the ground...our stance training and dynamics and foot work and body unity
is quite effective. But if one is taken to the ground or one slips and falls- body unity, understanding the forces at work including gravity and the combinations of major wing chun principles is quite helpful.
I don't recruit via chat lists but I do show my serious students what to do.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Interesting thing is, we are at page 12 and I am still not exactly sure what "Anti-grappling" is supposed to be. Is it more grappling or is it something else. Look at some videos from Tim Cartmel and you see basic grappling to combat grappling, look at the wing chun group I use to train with and they had kicks from the ground, as to many CMA styles, that are used to prevent ground fighting if you fall down, look at an old CMA view of things and you get Qinna is the defense against grappling and if you listen to the guy I briefly trained JKD with and he said he hated grappling but he knew enough about it to knew how to get off the ground....



Tim Cartmel's stuff isn't bad actually. Some of his reversals are actually based on sound principals and concepts. Additionally he states that his method isn't for use against skilled grapplers. Considering that a seasoned Bjj white belt a six-month MMAer, or High school wrestler could counter pretty much everything he's doing, it's an omission that I respect. At least his guys are attacking in a way an untrained grappler would attack. At least the guys he's working with are bigger and heavier than he is.



> Now if we can get by the jabs, put downs and other useless bit of this thread.......What exactly is anti-grappling supposed to be?



Anti grappling is a sub-system designed to counter the rise of MMA. I would say that stuff such as Tim Cartmell's is solid. However the majority of anti-grappling is simply bad MA. Especially when they claim that what they're doing works against skilled grapplers. Wing Chun anti-grappling is just one of many. 



Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ??????????????????????????



What's your question?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------
> Another wandering thread. But- anti grappling is an empty label means different things to different people.
> I am repeating from past posts. In the wing chun that I do-the better folks work on "body unity". Wing chun prefers not to deliberately go to the ground...our stance training and dynamics and foot work and body unity
> is quite effective. But if one is taken to the ground or one slips and falls- body unity, understanding the forces at work including gravity and the combinations of major wing chun principles is quite helpful.
> I don't recruit via chat lists but I do show my serious students what to do.



Kind of what my Taiji sifu says, fighting standing up or laying down, same principals, although I agree with that I also feel there is a little more to it, if we are talking a skilled MMA or BJJ person.



Hanzou said:


> Tim Cartmel's stuff isn't bad actually. Some of his reversals are actually based on sound principals and concepts. Additionally he states that his method isn't for use against skilled grapplers. Considering that a seasoned Bjj white belt a six-month MMAer, or High school wrestler could counter pretty much everything he's doing, it's an omission that I respect. At least his guys are attacking in a way an untrained grappler would attack. At least the guys he's working with are bigger and heavier than he is.



Tim Cartmell is a CMA guy and a BJJ guy. I suspect a good Qinna person could do as well too




Hanzou said:


> Anti grappling is a sub-system designed to counter the rise of MMA. I would say that stuff such as Tim Cartmell's is solid. However the majority of anti-grappling is simply bad MA. Especially when they claim that what they're doing works against skilled grapplers. Wing Chun anti-grappling is just one of many.



Most CMA styles have something to deal with the ground, but it is not exactly grappling, it is more to how the heck to get off it because in old school CMA ground means death. Many were training and fighting people with all sorts of nasty weapons. That however does not make it superior to MMA or BJJ grappling, it just means they don't like being on the ground and getting off of it is more to qinna, but many CMA styles today do not train much qinna either



Hanzou said:


> What's your question?


 
Not sure where that above quote came from since I do not see it in the post, but it does show up when I hit reply and it gives me quotes.

My question is as stated in post #224; What exactly is anti-grappling supposed to be?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This sound like a good anti-grappling clip to me. What do you guys think?

- A shoots in,
- B spins with an over hook,
- B then finish A with a reverse head lock.

Please notice the whole counter work because B has the knowledge to use "over hook". Without using the "over hook", B may not be able to spin his body and reverse his defense into offense.


----------



## geezer

Xue Sheng said:


> Most CMA styles have something to deal with the ground, but it is not exactly grappling, it is more to how the heck to get off it because in old school CMA* ground means death.*



Death! Oh that's a relief. I always thought TCMAs hated going to the ground because it meant *poo.*

You know, 19th Century China with narrow, crowded streets, poor sewage systems, lots of animals, ...dogs, horses, donkeys, oxen... not to mention chamber pots, etc. ...and consequently _lots of poo underfoot._ Somehow I can't imagine a gentile master Yip rolling in that. I wouldn't want to either. I really hate just stepping in poo. Forget about_ rolling_ in it!

And I would definitely leave my street shoes at the door.


----------



## Xue Sheng

geezer said:


> Death! Oh that's a relief. I always thought TCMAs hated going to the ground because it meant *poo.*
> 
> You know, 19th Century China with narrow, crowded streets, poor sewage systems, lots of animals, ...dogs, horses, donkeys, oxen... not to mention chamber pots, etc. ...and consequently _lots of poo underfoot._ Somehow I can't imagine a gentile master Yip rolling in that. I wouldn't want to either. I really hate just stepping in poo. Forget about_ rolling_ in it!
> 
> And I would definitely leave my street shoes at the door.



I'm sure that was a factor as well


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Kind of what my Taiji sifu says, fighting standing up or laying down, same principals, although I agree with that I also feel there is a little more to it, if we are talking a skilled MMA or BJJ person.



Yeah, no offense to your Taiji Sifu, but if you tried to use standing principles on the ground, you're going to be in big trouble. When I first started Bjj, I naturally tried to utilize Karate principles, and I got effectively shut down. The shut down included white belts with less than 3-6 months experience. They just don't apply, so you need to adjust.

That's one of my biggest concerns with some of the content in those videos. I've seen one anti-grappling vid where a guy is in another person's guard, and he attempts to do some sort of punching combo to get out of it. The entire premise of that entire set up is wrong. For starters, no street thug or even MMA person is going to put you in a guard to attack you. The Guard is a position you enter when someone is pressuring you and you end up on your back. No one is *purposely* going to fall to their back in a street fight.

However, if by some 0.0000001% chance you run across some thug who grabs you, and then immediately does a Guard pull, then you're dealing with someone highly skilled in the Guard, and the stuff in those videos isn't going to work anyway. Grabbing someone's nuts? Trying to poke out their eyes? Biting them? Complete nonsense. You're going to get choked out, or get your shoulder or elbow dislocated before you even knew what happened.

The real question is why are there so many videos of non-grapplers fighting out of Guards? Simple, because they watched Bjj or MMA on video, and don't understand the purpose behind the position. If you don't even understand the WHY someone is doing something, how do you expect to know how to counter it?



> Tim Cartmell is a CMA guy and a BJJ guy. I suspect a good Qinna person could do as well too



That doesn't surprise me. His methodology is very similar to Bjj's.



> Most CMA styles have something to deal with the ground, but it is not exactly grappling, it is more to how the heck to get off it because in old school CMA ground means death. Many were training and fighting people with all sorts of nasty weapons. That however does not make it superior to MMA or BJJ grappling, it just means they don't like being on the ground and getting off of it is more to qinna, but many CMA styles today do not train much qinna either



While I think its a good goal to try to escape the ground as quickly as possible, I think its more important to learn how to be comfortable from that position if your first, second, or third escape attempt fails. My concern is that people who's goal is to escape the ground as quickly as possible become frustrated just as quickly. I've been doing this for almost 9 years, and occasionally some of MY escapes don't work even against novices. However, since I'm comfortable in bad positions, I can transfer to a different movement, or even go for a full counter.





> Not sure where that above quote came from since I do not see it in the post, but it does show up when I hit reply and it gives me quotes.
> 
> My question is as stated in post #224; What exactly is anti-grappling supposed to be?



I was responding to Vaj.

You've already answered your own question when you mentioned Cartmell. That to me is proper anti-grappling.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, no offense to your Taiji Sifu, but if you tried to use standing principles on the ground, you're going to be in big trouble. When I first started Bjj, I naturally tried to utilize Karate principles, and I got effectively shut down. The shut down included white belts with less than 3-6 months experience. They just don't apply, so you need to adjust.



No offense to Karate, but Karate ain't Taiji either. But as I said in my post, I do believe there is a little more to it.



Hanzou said:


> That's one of my biggest concerns with some of the content in those videos. I've seen one anti-grappling vid where a guy is in another person's guard, and he attempts to do some sort of punching combo to get out of it. The entire premise of that entire set up is wrong. For starters, no street thug or even MMA person is going to put you in a guard to attack you. The Guard is a position you enter when someone is pressuring you and you end up on your back. No one is *purposely* going to fall to their back in a street fight.
> 
> However, if by some 0.0000001% chance you run across some thug who grabs you, and then immediately does a Guard pull, then you're dealing with someone highly skilled in the Guard, and the stuff in those videos isn't going to work anyway. Grabbing someone's nuts? Trying to poke out their eyes? Biting them? Complete nonsense. You're going to get choked out, or get your shoulder or elbow dislocated before you even knew what happened.
> 
> The real question is why are there so many videos of non-grapplers fighting out of Guards? Simple, because they watched Bjj or MMA on video, and don't understand the purpose behind the position. If you don't even understand the WHY someone is doing something, how do you expect to know how to counter it?



Thanks for the critique of the video, but I never did take is all that seriously and to be honest I take very little seriously I see on YouTube.

But to stance; go after a skilled Police/Military Sanda person and you won't see a guard at all, they fight from whatever position they are in at the moment and they will not care standup, ground or anything else. Go after any good CMA person and they will not go into a guard stance, there is no time, so BJJ and MMA are not the founders of that.



Hanzou said:


> While I think its a good goal to try to escape the ground as quickly as possible, I think its more important to learn how to be comfortable from that position if your first, second, or third escape attempt fails. My concern is that people who's goal is to escape the ground as quickly as possible become frustrated just as quickly. I've been doing this for almost 9 years, and occasionally some of MY escapes don't work even against novices. However, since I'm comfortable in bad positions, I can transfer to a different movement, or even go for a full counter.



Like I said, does not make it superior, just means they don't like being on the ground. But to be honest I am not convinced that a good Qinna person could not get off the ground of break, dislocate, or injure someone that tried to keep him there either, this also is not saying it is superior to a skilled BJJ person, it is just saying they have skills to and they should not be taken lightly or look down upon because they are not BJJ. But then high level Qinna people are by far fewer than competent BJJ people. .


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Kind of what my Taiji sifu says, fighting standing up or laying down, same principals, although I agree with that I also feel there is a little more to it, if we are talking a skilled MMA or BJJ person.



If the principles were the same you would automatically be able to fight on the ground. And competent strikers generally cant unless they understand the principles.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> While I think its a good goal to try to escape the ground as quickly as possible, I think its more important to learn how to be comfortable from that position if your first, second, or third escape attempt fails. My concern is that people who's goal is to escape the ground as quickly as possible become frustrated just as quickly. I've been doing this for almost 9 years, and occasionally some of MY escapes don't work even against novices. However, since I'm comfortable in bad positions, I can transfer to a different movement, or even go for a full counter.



We are trained to not be comfortable on our backs. And that is because of punching and that the guy on top can also grapple. Which makes subs a lot harder.

But if we include punching then escapes with intensity has a new role. If you are holding me down you cant hit me as easily.

Anti grappling should aim to make you uncontrollable down there. So rather than it being some half baked notion. It becomes a change in tactics. Like for example getting that wrestling turtle and stand rather than re guard and going for subs.


----------



## drop bear

Pretty much anybody fighting ben askren has to employ the anti grapple.






Then he got eye poked.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Pretty much anybody fighting ben askren has to employ the anti grapple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he got eye poked.


The guy with the blue gloves has good anti-grappling skill. Everytime the other guy shoots in, he can manage to spin his body and end to be on top. Unfortunately, that "body spin" is not normally trained in most of the striking art.

So my question is, if there are some anti-grappling skills that's not noramlly trained in the striking art then how effecive their anti-striking skill can be?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The guy with the blue gloves has good anti-grappling skill. Everytime the other guy shoots in, he can manage to spin his body and end to be on top. Unfortunately, that "body spin" is not normally trained in most of the striking art.
> 
> So my question is, if there are some anti-grappling skills that's not noramlly trained in the striking art then how effecive their anti-striking skill can be?



Sorry I don't understand


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Sorry I don't understand


- Your opponent holds on your waist and tries to take you down.
- Your body is leaning back in a 45 degree angle.
- Instate of falling backward and let your opponent to land on top of you, you "spin your body" and end with you on top of your opponent.

It's like to throw a cat in the air, that cat will flip it's body, and land on it's feet. This is not the skill that most strikers will spend their training time to develop.

The "body spin" can be seen in this clip too. He didn't end with on top of his opponent, but at least he ended witth next to his opponent and not under his opponent. IMO, don't let your opponent to land on top of you is an important skill. That "over hook leg lift" was the 1st "leg shooting counter" that I had learned back when I was in Taiwan.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Your opponent holds on your waist and tries to take you down.
> - Your body is leaning back in a 45 degree angle.
> - Instate of falling backward and let your opponent to land on top of you, you "spin your body" and end with you on top of your opponent.
> 
> It's like to throw a cat in the air, that cat will flip it's body, and land on it's feet. This is not the skill that most strikers will spend their training time to develop.
> 
> The "body spin" can be seen in this clip too. He didn't end with on top of his opponent, but at least he ended witth next to his opponent and not under his opponent. IMO, don't let your opponent to land on top of you is an important skill. That "over hook leg lift" was the 1st "leg shooting counter" that I had learned back when I was in Taiwan.



Yeah the grappling principles and striking principles are different. Even very simple ideas like the guy on the bottom trying to hug down the guy on top. Works stand up. Doesn't escape mount.

In fact escape mount is a good one because there are specific defences and all the flailing around in the world wont find them by accident.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> If the principles were the same you would automatically be able to fight on the ground. And competent strikers generally cant unless they understand the principles.


No offense, but again another statement that makes no sense? Let say I learn how to drive a car. Later I decide To race in a formula one car. Then I jump in a off-road Baja 1000 truck. Then I decide to race Nascar? Do the principles really changes? Or do I just have to adapt those same principles to that given situation? Of coarse Im not going to get my learners permit this week and next week race top fuel dragsters. But the principles are still there. Principles that fundamentally do not change. Instead can be built upon.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> No offense, but again another statement that makes no sense? Let say I learn how to drive a car. Later I decide To race in a formula one car. Then I jump in a off-road Baja 1000 truck. Then I decide to race Nascar? Do the principles really changes? Or do I just have to adapt those same principles to that given situation? Of coarse Im not going to get my learners permit this week and next week race top fuel dragsters. But the principles are still there. Principles that fundamentally do not change. Instead are built upon.



On road off road the principles change.


----------



## Jake104

No they don't? What about on road wet? Baja is raced on paved and dirt


----------



## Jake104

Racing is racing fighting is fighting. If you have a good foundation things don't change much. I like you I agree with a lot you say but, I think you look at things very one dimensional. Through maybe your experiences only?


----------



## Jake104

Just because your Karate didn't work on the ground doesn't mean ground fighting and stand up principles don't OVERLAP. Notice I don't say are exactly the same. There is some adaptation.


----------



## Jake104

....and welcome to page 13!!!


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> No they don't? What about on road wet? Baja is raced on paved and dirt



What about actual off road. Could your formula one skills stop you being bogged?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Racing is racing fighting is fighting. If you have a good foundation things don't change much. I like you I agree with a lot you say but, I think you look at things very one dimensional. Through maybe your experiences only?



Through my experiences of doing mma which is precisely about bridging the difference between striking and grappling.

Ok. So why do experienced strikers get mauled on the ground?


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> What about actual off road. Could your formula one skills stop you being bogged?


 Yes good throttle control and riding the clutch. I'm the wrong guy to argue cars and racing with. Haha I have raced on pavement and off-road.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Through my experiences of doing mma which is precisely about bridging the difference between striking and grappling.
> 
> Ok. So why do experienced strikers get mauled on the ground?


Not always. If  they are delusional and think they will never end up on the ground yes. But if they train and become comfortable fighting on the ground and adapt no


----------



## Jake104

I don't think we are too far off the same page here. Overlap overlap overlap. Things don't change that much on the ground if you know energy structure and sensitivity..Last week I was working standard arm bars with grapplers. I could feel openings. I could feel when the pressure goes away a little. I could feel when opponent moves I can take his balance on the ground and escape? Same things I feel on my feet in the clinch?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Not always. If  they are delusional and think they will never end up on the ground yes. But if they train and become comfortable fighting on the ground and adapt no



What are they adapting if it is the same principles? So side control escape. What is the stand up principle being used.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I don't think we are too far off the same page here. Overlap overlap overlap. Things don't change that much on the ground if you know energy. Last week I was working standard arm bars with grapplers. I could feel openings. I could feel when the pressure goes away a little. I could feel when opponent moves I can take his balance on the ground and escape? Same things I feel on my feet in the clinch?



Which escape were you using? I do the shoot my head between his legs and go into guard or hail Mary roll.

Neither of which I attempt standing.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Yes good throttle control and riding the clutch. I'm the wrong guy to argue cars and racing with. Haha I have raced on pavement and off-road.



Actual off road? Because there are some specific Skills involved inthat.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Which escape were you using? I do the shoot my head between his legs and go into guard or hail Mary roll.
> 
> Neither of which I attempt standing.


You are thinking techniques. So arm bar, lift shoulder press head into mat step over knees together arch hips extend arm thumb up? The step over part requires moving? If I move with you instead of fighting you I can take your balance and move to half guard or whereVer? If I'm standing same principles apply. I don't have a bag of techniques. I have sensitivity. You do to. You do chi sao and you don't even realize your doing it.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Actual off road? Because there are some specific Skills involved inthat.


Like what? There's some extra skillz involved. But the fundamental concepts and principles of driving still remain the same.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> You are thinking techniques. So arm bar, lift shoulder press head into mat step over knees together arch hips extend arm thumb up? The step over part requires moving? If I move with you instead of fighting you I can take your balance and move to half guard or whereVer? If I'm standing same principles apply. I don't have a bag of techniques. I have sensitivity. You do to. You do chi sao and you don't even realize your doing it.



Thumb down if what you are describing is a hail Mary. (I will find a vid)

Sensitivity overlaps. Fitness overlaps,strength overlaps. The issue is you can generalize to the point where the principles match but don't help.

The key to boxing is punching them and not letting them punch you. But it is not very helpful advice.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> You are thinking techniques. So arm bar, lift shoulder press head into mat step over knees together arch hips extend arm thumb up? The step over part requires moving? If I move with you instead of fighting you I can take your balance and move to half guard or whereVer? If I'm standing same principles apply. I don't have a bag of techniques. I have sensitivity. You do to. You do chi sao and you don't even realize your doing it.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Like what? There's some extra skillz involved. But the fundamental concepts and principles of driving still remain the same.



Lets just stick to fighting principles.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. On my other little bug bear I have. Using bjj for anti grapple.

Test the technique works but is this really the go to side control escape you would teach a soldier?


----------



## Jake104

Thumb up for guy doing the arm bar to straighten arm? I like the video.
That's it!! I challenge you to death match? This is the only way we can resolve this!!!! Hopefully I don't get banned.?cause I'm JK!

I'm just playing around, arguing is making my head hurt. Your not wrong . I don't disagree completely. I guess I just look at things in a different and slightly weirder way.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Ok. On my other little bug bear I have. Using bjj for anti grapple.
> 
> Test the technique works but is this really the go to side control escape you would teach a soldier?








Side control escape but you finish in that. "ground is full of poo sobi must stand up" position.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Thumb up for guy doing the arm bar to straighten arm? I like the video.
> That's it!! I challenge you to death match? This is the only way we can resolve this!!!! Hopefully I don't get banned.?cause I'm JK!
> 
> I'm just playing around, arguing is making my head hurt. Your not wrong . I don't disagree completely. I guess I just look at things in a different and slightly weirder way.



Done. I will build the flash Gordon arena. You provide the bird men.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> No offense to Karate, but Karate ain't Taiji either. But as I said in my post, I do believe there is a little more to it.



No offense taken. 



> Thanks for the critique of the video, but I never did take is all that seriously and to be honest I take very little seriously I see on YouTube.
> 
> But to stance; go after a skilled Police/Military Sanda person and you won't see a guard at all, they fight from whatever position they are in at the moment and they will not care standup, ground or anything else. Go after any good CMA person and they will not go into a guard stance, there is no time, so BJJ and MMA are not the founders of that.



Well, that's not really what I was talking about. I was talking about this stuff;

















> Like I said, does not make it superior, just means they don't like being on the ground. But to be honest I am not convinced that a good Qinna person could not get off the ground of break, dislocate, or injure someone that tried to keep him there either, this also is not saying it is superior to a skilled BJJ person, it is just saying they have skills to and they should not be taken lightly or look down upon because they are not BJJ. But then high level Qinna people are by far fewer than competent BJJ people. .



Is Qinna really all that different from what you see out of Jujutsu? Additionally, I went through an older Qinna book by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming,  and it had no ground applications to speak of, nor much of anything to oppose a wrestler-style takedown.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> nor much of anything to oppose a wrestler-style takedown.


As I have pointed this out many times, strikers don't train those skills that's needed to "deal with" wrestlers' takedown (such as "avoid to be on the bottom"). The best they can do is to "avoid it". IMO, just to "avoid it" is far from enough.

If we put this in 3 categories:

1. avoid it (avoid take down),
2. deal with it (avoid to be on the bottom),
3. counter it (get back on top fom the bottom),

2 and 3 will require different skill set than 1 will require.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> We are trained to not be comfortable on our backs. And that is because of punching and that the guy on top can also grapple. Which makes subs a lot harder.
> 
> But if we include punching then escapes with intensity has a new role. If you are holding me down you cant hit me as easily.
> 
> Anti grappling should aim to make you uncontrollable down there. So rather than it being some half baked notion. It becomes a change in tactics. Like for example getting that wrestling turtle and stand rather than re guard and going for subs.



Well keep in mind, when I say "comfortable on your back" I'm not saying you take a nap while someone tries to escape your guard. I'm saying you're not freaking out because you're on your back and someone is on top of you. Which frankly is an excellent skill to have.

Additionally if I'm holding you down in my guard, you shouldn't be hitting me either, since its four limbs against two.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> you're not freaking out because you're on your back and someone is on top of you. Which frankly is an excellent skill to have.


I can't believe anybody would want to disagree with you on that. That statement can be considered almost as the "end of discussion".

When

- Bill Gates saw the Apple Lisa UI, he said, "I want it." Bill didn't mind to "evolve", that's why he succeeds.
- I saw the Zerox Star UI, I said, "I want it", but my IBM vice-president said, "That's not IBM (does this sound very familiar?)". IBM didn't want to "evolve" and killed my "ACE project", that's why IBM lose that battle.

Believe it or not, during that battle, one senior IBM guy made the following statement, "Those nice desktop Icons are cute, but it will hurt our IBM seriouse business image. We don't need window system (ground skill), as long as we can let our customers to type letter (kick), put up spread sheet (punch), and draw some business chart (take down), that will be all we need."


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well keep in mind, when I say "comfortable on your back" I'm not saying you take a nap while someone tries to escape your guard. I'm saying you're not freaking out because you're on your back and someone is on top of you. Which frankly is an excellent skill to have.
> 
> Additionally if I'm holding you down in my guard, you shouldn't be hitting me either, since its four limbs against two.



Either you can trust me on this or roll with punches.

But guard is not a fun place to play from.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Either you can trust me on this or roll with punches.
> 
> But guard is not a fun place to play from.



What makes you think I don't roll with punches?

The guard IS a dominant position, which is why people have had to devise various clever ways to pass it. You're not going to break everyone's guard by smashing them in the face with punches all the time. Especially if that person is a superior grappler than you are.

Your level of "fun" depends on how good you are from that position. There's plenty of guys who are wizards from that position, and purposely would fight from that position if the situation warrants it.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I don't roll with punches?
> 
> The guard IS a dominant position, which is why people have had to devise various clever ways to pass it. You're not going to break everyone's guard by smashing them in the face with punches all the time. Especially if that person is a superior grappler than you are.
> 
> Your level of "fun" depends on how good you are from that position. There's plenty of guys who are wizards from that position, and purposely would fight from that position if the situation warrants it.



Dominant in bjj. Not dominant in mma.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> What makes you think I don't roll with punches?
> 
> The guard IS a dominant position, which is why people have had to devise various clever ways to pass it. You're not going to break everyone's guard by smashing them in the face with punches all the time. Especially if that person is a superior grappler than you are.
> 
> Your level of "fun" depends on how good you are from that position. There's plenty of guys who are wizards from that position, and purposely would fight from that position if the situation warrants it.



Coaches Corner The Role Of The Guard In MMA - Bloody Elbow


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Dominant in bjj. Not dominant in mma.



Are you saying that guys in MMA aren't subbed from guard? I would wager that more guys in MMA have been subbed in guard, than have been knocked out from GNP while in their guards.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Coaches Corner The Role Of The Guard In MMA - Bloody Elbow



Yeah, I've read that article before. Its worth pointing out that the modern day rules of MMA work against the guard. Despite that, I highly doubt we're going to see MMA guys stop training the guard position anytime soon.

Additionally we're talking about self defense, not MMA.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I've read that article before. Its worth pointing out that the modern day rules of MMA work against the guard. Despite that, I highly doubt we're going to see MMA guys stop training the guard position anytime soon.
> 
> Additionally we're talking about self defense, not MMA.



Less training in re guarding. Which is a bit different. And if you cant sub a guy in five minutes who is beating on you then that does not bode well for SD either.


----------



## Kwan Sau

C'mon on....just a little bit further and we can all jump to page 15! Yahoooooooooo!


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Less training in re guarding. Which is a bit different. And if you cant sub a guy in five minutes who is beating on you then that does not bode well for SD either.



Well its pretty hard to sub a mostly naked and sweaty guy who is just as good at grappling as you are. It's additionally tough when the ref will stand you up if there's no "action" going on. Quite a bit different than a SD situation right?

That said, I think this is a good topic drop bear. I'll start a new thread about it.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> Well its pretty hard to sub a mostly naked and sweaty guy .....Quite a bit different than a SD situation right?



I guess it depends what part of town you're in


----------



## Vajramusti

Kwan Sau said:


> C'mon on....just a little bit further and we can all jump to page 15! Yahoooooooooo!


------------------------------------------
If you know the train I am on
You will know that I am gone-a hundred miles.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Is Qinna really all that different from what you see out of Jujutsu? Additionally, I went through an older Qinna book by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming,  and it had no ground applications to speak of, nor much of anything to oppose a wrestler-style takedown.




Its defense against and used for getting off of.


----------



## yak sao

What makes someone a "master" of chin na, is not that they can take a technique and _make_ it work whenever they want.
It's someone who's practiced the technique thousands of times and knows _when_ to apply it.
This doesn't matter whether one is standing, sitting or lying on the ground.


----------



## Vajramusti

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------
> If you know the train I am on
> You will know that I am gone-a hundred miles.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone with china post the 14 pages on a MMA forum?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Well its pretty hard to sub a mostly naked and sweaty guy who is just as good at grappling as you are. It's additionally tough when the ref will stand you up if there's no "action" going on. Quite a bit different than a SD situation right?
> 
> That said, I think this is a good topic drop bear. I'll start a new thread about it.



But if you are on the ground too long on the street ninjas jump out of trees and attack you.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> But if you are on the ground too long on the street ninjas jump out of trees and attack you.


I've had this happen. I got the crap beat out me. I was 18 and curled up in the fetal position. I went to my happy place while six guys tee'd off on me. Kicking field goals laces out. I was winning the fight one on one even on the ground. Them boom! Was a pool hall across the street the ninjas came from.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> But if you are on the ground too long on the street ninjas jump out of trees and attack you.



I'll take my chances with the street ninjas over the guy on top of me punching me in the face repeatedly.


----------



## Vajramusti

15 pages- and the band plays on  !!


----------



## yak sao

Vajramusti said:


> 15 pages- and the band plays on  !!


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> I'll take my chances with the street ninjas over the guy on top of me punching me in the face repeatedly.


Famous last words before coma? Right before guys friend kicks you in the head with steel toe timberlands? The 90's gotta love that decade? Do people still wear timberlands?


----------



## mograph

Is it over yet?


----------



## Kwan Sau

Vajramusti said:


> 15 pages- and the band plays on  !!



I know!  



mograph said:


> Is it over yet?



Sadly...no...   something tells me page 16 isn't that far off...


----------



## Jake104

Kwan Sau said:


> I know!
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly...no...   something tells me page 16 isn't that far off...


I feel it. It's coming. The next wave of posts!


----------



## Jake104

yak sao said:


>


Best 10 hours of my life! Thank you.


----------



## Vajramusti

Jake104 said:


> I feel it. It's coming. The next wave of posts!


-----------------------------------

16 tons and what do you get-another day older and deeper in debt


----------



## yak sao

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------
> 
> 16 _*pages*_ and what do you get-another day older and deeper in debt



I fixed it for you.


----------



## yak sao

I have nothing to say, I just want to see this puppy roll over to 16 pages....who's with me?...........
Anyone?........
Hello?..........


----------



## Jake104

yak sao said:


> I have nothing to say, I just want to see this puppy roll over to 16 pages....who's with me?...........
> Anyone?........
> Hello?..........


Maybe this will do it???????


----------



## Jake104

Nope! So close I can feel it! We need the grapplers to help? I think I know how to get them back on board..... Wing Chun has the best "anti grappling" and the Op video will destroy all takedowns??????? Come on guys come back?


----------



## Jake104

Well i did my part. Now back to Friday evening beers!


----------



## geezer

Jake104 said:


> Nope! So close I can feel it! We need the grapplers to help? I think I know how to get them back on board..... Wing Chun has the best "anti grappling" and the Op video will destroy all takedowns??????? Come on guys come back?




No problem, Jake. I'll _pretend _that I'm an irate grappler and go find a video or something  that I can show (mostly out of context) to trollishly get all the WC guys riled up. Then I can change roles and get really offended at myself. 

Give me a few minutes to go and dig up some dirt....


----------



## geezer

OK  ...how's this to get us onto page 16 and beyond...

From_ Wing Tsun Welt _(Wing Tsun World), the online bulletin/newsletter of the_ EWTO_ (the same organization the Victor Gutierrez, the guy shown in the OP used to represent) comes this article written by a man with no vowels in his last name, Stefan Crnko:

Interview with Sifu Stefan Crnko about the BlitzCombat WingTsun-Programme WingTsun-World - The Magazine of the EWTO

For those of you with little patience for reading such a long article, the part that I found interesting and relevant was where Crnko addresses groundfighting. Among other things, he is quoted with the response below:

*Does this mean you don’t teach groundfighting?*
_"No, I must have expressed myself unclearly. I only teach WT people very little ground-wrestling. Instead I show how pure WT methods (blows, kicks, Chi-Sao), and especially elbows and knees, can be used on the ground to make life difficult for wrestlers …
In short: I teach a anti-groundfighting, i.e. WT methods that can be used against typical wrestling attacks on the ground!"_

Now, if you go to youtube and check out videos of Crnko's cage fights, you will find that he is a powerful man, a strong WC striker who had some success. You will also see what happenned when he was taken to the ground (save some time and skip ahead to about 3:00):






There. Don't  bother to read the rest of the article, or consider that Crnko learned a lot more about grappling after this experience. A reasonable and measured approach will never get us onto page 16!!!


On the other hand, I should point out that while the article in its entirety does value grappling in sport, Crnko still _insists_ that WT for self defense is a complete system and has it's own solutions to a grappling attack. Unfortunately, when going up against a guy as big and strong as he is, and particularly, a guy with some grappling skill, Crnko's _pure WT training _didn't work out so well.


----------



## Vajramusti

!6-yes?


----------



## Jake104

Not yet.


----------



## yak sao

Maybe we should all ante up a dollar, and the one who gets us to page 16 collects?


----------



## Jake104

Time to mentally destroy page 15


----------



## Vajramusti

yak sao said:


> Maybe we should all ante up a dollar, and the one who gets us to page 16 collects?


-----------------------
bravo yaksao


----------



## Jake104

yak sao said:


> Maybe we should all ante up a dollar, and the one who gets us to page 16 collects?


I guess you win!!! Man so exciting! That was the highlight of my Friday night. I need a life!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _ I teach a anti-groundfighting, i.e. WT methods that can be used against typical wrestling attacks on the ground!".._.



Why "anti-throw/takedow" is ignored here? The anti-groundfight is not the same as anti-throw/takedown. Do anti-grappling guys only care about dealing with BJJ guys and don't care much about dealing with wrestlers or Judo guys?


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why "anti-throw/takedow" is ignored here? The anti-groundfight is not the same as anti-throw/takedown. Do WC guys only care about BJJ guys and don't care much about wrestlers or Judo guys?


Not me.
Throws are deadly.  I have the utmost respect for Judo and Wrestling. Actually all Martial arts.


----------



## Jake104

Throw take downs are generally very dynamic and violent. Or a least can be. Usually breaking bones or dislocating joints when done properly. I'm talking about real combative type throwing. Not sport.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I'll take my chances with the street ninjas over the guy on top of me punching me in the face repeatedly.



Which can happen. 

Ok the theory is your in guard and you have more submissions than the other guy. So the guard is dominant. But with striking the guy in guard does not have to bother with submissions because he can just stack and beat on you. Or lay and pray.

Lay and pray works in the strikers favor from on top. Because if he is not actively defending a sub he can hit. And lots of really hard to defend or capitalise hits like holding the face and just sliding the elbow.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I have posted this clip twice and this is the 3rd time that I put it up. If one cares about anti-grappling, he should also care about "not to be on the bottom". IMO, that's a very very important anti-grappling skill.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Throw take downs are generally very dynamic and violent. Or a least can be. Usually breaking bones or dislocating joints when done properly. I'm talking about real combative type throwing. Not sport.



Sports throws are more likely to work though. Everybody should have double leg single leg combos in there arsenal.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Sports throws are more likely to work though. Everybody should have double leg single leg combos in there arsenal.


I'm not saying sport throws won't work. I mean a sport throw only needs to be tweaked ever so slightly and it becomes deadly. Mainly intent. In comp your intent is not to really hurt your opponent permanently? Intent on the street is to slam his head into something. Possibly to save your life and end his.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I'm not saying sport throws won't work. I mean a sport throw only needs to be tweaked ever so slightly and it becomes deadly. Mainly intent. In comp your intent is not to really hurt your opponent permanently? Intent on the street is to slam his head into something. Possibly to save your life and end his.



Fair enough. I thought were were going to go down the arm bar style throw route.

By the way there are some nast single leg variations that will send you matwards head first.

And suplexes of course.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Fair enough. I thought were were going to go down the arm bar style throw route.
> 
> By the way there are some nast single leg variations that will send you matwards head first.
> 
> And suplexes of course.


I'm learning that. Head first is nasty! Imagine concrete. Hey are neck head/cranks legal in competition?


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I'm not saying sport throws won't work. I mean a sport throw only needs to be tweaked ever so slightly and it becomes deadly. Mainly intent. In comp your intent is not to really hurt your opponent permanently? Intent on the street is to slam his head into something. Possibly to save your life and end his.








This sort of mischief. There is a frontal sweep as well.

And you will notice that this sort of takedown would be a perfect SD style throw. Yet they much around with all sorts of silly nonsense.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I'm learning that. Head first is nasty! Imagine concrete. Hey are neck head/cranks legal in competition?



Yep. Crank away.


----------



## Jake104

I wish I was younger and had a good back. I'm really enjoying grappling. Competing looks fun. I have great coaches that know my physical limitations. So they work around that and we do a lot of standing grappling with throws and countering. Obliviously I can't be thrown around like a rag doll cause I break easily. but I'm learning hopefully how to not be thrown or a least survive. Plus I'm armed usually.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I'm learning that. Head first is nasty! Imagine concrete. Hey are neck head/cranks legal in competition?








And another sport one I have never seen a rbsder use.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> I wish I was younger and had a good back. I'm really enjoying grappling. Competing looks fun. I have great coaches that know my physical limitations. So they work around that and we do a lot of standing grappling with throws and countering. Obliviously I can't be thrown around like a rag doll but I'm learning hopefully how to not be thrown or a least survive. Plus I'm armed usually.



Yeah it is interesting times.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Jake104 said:


> I'm really enjoying grappling. Competing looks fun.


When you take your opponent down 15 times in a role with final score of 15-0, you will laught in your dreams for the next 3 nights. Will you be able to knock your opponent down 15 times within 1 hour in your striking art testing? It will be very unlikely.


----------



## Sub Zero

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have posted this clip twice and this is the 3rd time that I put it up. If one cares about anti-grappling, he should also care about "not to be on the bottom". IMO, that's a very very important anti-grappling skill]



Yeah, that falls in the "no crap Sherlock" category LOL.

That submission reminded me of a baseball bat collar choke? At least with the finishing principals.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The striking art is like to make love without the final finish. What kind of satisfaction can you get out of it?



To continue with that analogy, Training striking on a heavy bag, is like making love to one of these:


----------



## ShotoNoob

geezer said:


> To continue with that analogy, Training striking on a heavy bag, is like making love to one of these:
> 
> View attachment 19342


|
Well now I don't feel so bad about much of the criticisms leveled @ me.  Given my total absence of experience where one such as you brings to the table...


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why "anti-throw/takedow" is ignored here? The anti-groundfight is not the same as anti-throw/takedown. Do anti-grappling guys only care about dealing with BJJ guys and don't care much about dealing with wrestlers or Judo guys?



Don't forget, we Bjj guys throw just like the Judo and Wrestler guys.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Which can happen.
> 
> Ok the theory is your in guard and you have more submissions than the other guy. So the guard is dominant. But with striking the guy in guard does not have to bother with submissions because he can just stack and beat on you. Or lay and pray.
> 
> Lay and pray works in the strikers favor from on top. Because if he is not actively defending a sub he can hit. And lots of really hard to defend or capitalise hits like holding the face and just sliding the elbow.



What's the skill level of my opponent in this theory? Am I dealing with a highly skilled grappler, or just some clown in the street?

Thing is, lay and pray and stacking only works on a skilled Bjj player if you're also a highly skilled grappler with an amazing top game and sub defense. Bjj is literally designed to deal with that sort of thing with its guard sweeps and it's various guard chokes and locks. Further, Bjj players should be getting trained to deal with strikes while in guard. I was always trained that way because my academy(ies) were always old school Gracie academies.

The problem is that you're looking at this through the prism of someone who is trained to directly counter a highly skilled guard. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea how to do that. And those that do are almost always equivalent to purple to black belt Bjj practitioners themselves.

If you need any evidence of this, just view that Krav Maga vid I posted where the guy opens himself up to numerous submissions and sweeps without even realizing it. He has no idea how the guard works at all, yet he made a video on how to stop it.

So yeah, if I'm dealing with a MMA guy who is bigger, stronger, and just as skilled as I am, I'm in a lot of trouble. If I'm dealing with that Krav Maga guy, I'll be just fine.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> What's the skill level of my opponent in this theory? Am I dealing with a highly skilled grappler, or just some clown in the street?
> 
> Thing is, lay and pray and stacking only works on a skilled Bjj player if you're also a highly skilled grappler with an amazing top game and sub defense. Bjj is literally designed to deal with that sort of thing with its guard sweeps and it's various guard chokes and locks. Further, Bjj players should be getting trained to deal with strikes while in guard. I was always trained that way because my academy(ies) were always old school Gracie academies.
> 
> The problem is that you're looking at this through the prism of someone who is trained to directly counter a highly skilled guard. The vast majority of people have absolutely no idea how to do that. And those that do are almost always equivalent to purple to black belt Bjj practitioners themselves.
> 
> If you need any evidence of this, just view that Krav Maga vid I posted where the guy opens himself up to numerous submissions and sweeps without even realizing it. He has no idea how the guard works at all, yet he made a video on how to stop it.
> 
> So yeah, if I'm dealing with a MMA guy who is bigger, stronger, and just as skilled as I am, I'm in a lot of trouble. If I'm dealing with that Krav Maga guy, I'll be just fine.



If I can handle the skilled guy. The unskilled guy will handle himself.

But I think I mentioned that for the most part the anti grappler does not have the depth of knowledge that a bjj guy has. He is running very lean on techniques when it comes to ground work. So the skill level is always a lot closer than a dedicated bjjer.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> _*Why "anti-throw/takedow" is ignored here*_? The anti-groundfight is not the same as anti-throw/takedown. Do anti-grappling guys only care about dealing with BJJ guys and don't care much about dealing with wrestlers or Judo guys?




It's not ignored. I was taught this aspect some 20 years ago. We were taught to deal with shoulder throws, hip throws, waist clenches.....


----------



## drop bear

yak sao said:


> It's not ignored. I was taught this aspect some 20 years ago. We were taught to deal with shoulder throws, hip throws, waist clenches.....



What method were you taught?


----------



## yak sao

Everything we were taught was based on Wing Tsun principles and body mechanics.To try and explain it in written form would take too long. I will try to find an example.


----------



## Vajramusti

yak sao said:


> Everything we were taught was based on Wing Tsun principles and body mechanics.To try and explain it in written form would take too long. I will try to find an example.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, good wing chun body dynamics and wing chun principles carries me far. My late good Alaskan Malamute could handle a great dane when standing on two feet and didn't have to become a fish in order to swim
in rivers and lakes.

And honor to Ip man for his legacy on Father's day.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> We were taught to deal with shoulder throws, hip throws, waist clenches.....


IMO, the most effective counters are:

1. shoulder throw - "摘(Zai) – helmet removing",
2. hip throw - "崩(Beng) - elbow cracking",
3. waist clenches - "抹(Mo) - eyebrow wiping".

Here is the "摘(Zai) – helmet removing". In order to do this properly, the line between your feet and the line between your opponent's feet should be in a 90 degree angle. 








yak sao said:


> Everything we were taught was based on Wing Tsun principles and body mechanics.To try and explain it in written form would take too long. I will try to find an example.



Since this is an "anti-grappling" thread, it may be interested to discuss the WC solutions for these.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Don't forget, we Bjj guys throw just like the Judo and Wrestler guys.


- Wrestlers don't talk much about ground game,
- BJJ guys don't talk much about throw.

This is understandable. But from the "anti-grappling" point of view, both issues should be addressed.


----------



## yak sao

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For me, good wing chun body dynamics and wing chun principles carries me far.



I agree. An attack, whether it be striking or grappling of some sort, is simply placing some form of pressure on the body.
If WC teaches anything, it's dealing with pressures placed on the body.


----------



## Vajramusti

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the most effective counters are:
> 
> 1. shoulder throw - "摘(Zai) – helmet removing",
> 2. hip throw - "崩(Beng) - elbow cracking",
> 3. waist clenches - "抹(Mo) - eyebrow wiping".
> 
> Here is the "摘(Zai) – helmet removing". In order to do this properly, the line between your feet and the line between your opponent's feet should be in a 90 degree angle.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> I operate from my wing chun stance and footwork-and don't depend on fixed techniques with fixed names.
> Can do 1, 2 or 3 with wing chun dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since this is an "anti-grappling" thread, it may be interested to discuss the WC solutions for these.


----------



## Shai Hulud

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Wrestlers don't talk much about ground game,
> - BJJ guys don't talk much about throw.
> 
> This is understandable. But from the "anti-grappling" point of view, both issues should be addressed.


The takedowns are much more fun!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

For anti-grappling, there is no single master key that can open all locks. You have to "find the right key to open the right lock". Of course you can use hammer to smash on a lock and open it. It may take more force than you really need. With the right key, you can open your lock with very little effort. In other words, the "anti-grappling" will require a set of "special skills" that you need to train no matter what style that you may come from.

For example, when your opponent applies "leg lift (Uchi Mata)" on you, the only best counter is to "ride on". You try to

- borrow your opponent's lifting force,
- jump on his back, and
- use your weight to crash him all the way down onto the ground.

Since this "ride on" skill will require a lot of training (otherwise you won't be able to respond to your opponent's throw on time), there is no "short cut" for "anti-grappling".


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For anti-grappling, there is no single master key that can open all locks. You have to "find the right key to open the right lock". Of course you can use hammer to smash on a lock and open it. It may take more force than you really need. With the right key, you can open your lock with very little effort. In other words, the "anti-grappling" will require a set of "special skills" that you need to train no matter what style that you may come from.
> 
> For example, when your opponent applies "leg lift (Uchi Mata)" on you, the only best counter is to "ride on". You try to
> 
> - borrow your opponent's lifting force,
> - jump on his back, and
> - use your weight to crash him all the way down onto the ground.
> 
> Since this "ride on" skill will require a lot of training (otherwise you won't be able to respond to your opponent's throw on time), there is no "short cut" for "anti-grappling".


Good post! The real skill is learning how to recognize and react before the throw, takedown or choke gets to the point of no return. Obviously it's easier said than done. There are counter techniques that work or it can be as simple as having really good timing and sensitivity. Both go hand and hand and both require quite a bit of training. You ask for the WC point of view? That's mine. Simple.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Good post! The real skill is learning how to recognize and react before the throw, takedown or choke gets to the point of no return. Obviously it's easier said than done. There are counter techniques that work or it can be as simple as having really good timing and sensitivity. Both go hand and hand and both require quite a bit of training. You ask for the WC point of view? That's mine. Simple.



Somewhere in this thread I did mention ways to give yourself a bit more time.

That is part of the equation. Otherwise you have to always be significantly better than the guy you are fighting. Which is not always possible.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Somewhere in this thread I did mention ways to give yourself a bit more time.
> 
> That is part of the equation. Otherwise you have to always be significantly better than the guy you are fighting. Which is not always possible.


I agree. It's all about being a step or two ahead of the opponent. There are tricks or safeguards to always be.


----------



## Jake104

I'm never better than the other guy. I'm old slow and lazy. I need to cheat!


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Marnetmar said:


> Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?



Cruel to see how they are not even able to have a proper head-cover up with their hands. Every kickboxer could knock them out with an aimed punch to the nose.


----------



## Tez3

JohnnyEnglish said:


> Cruel to see how they are not even able to have a proper head-cover up with their hands. Every kickboxer could knock them out with an aimed punch to the nose.




A KO with a punch to the nose, that's novel. I suppose it's because it breaks the bone and sends it into the brain?


----------



## JohnnyEnglish

Tez3 said:


> A KO with a punch to the nose, that's novel. I suppose it's because it breaks the bone and sends it into the brain?



*cough* mythos.


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


>


Face, meet mat!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Marnetmar said:


> Can someone explain to me how any of this can possibly work?



Some of that stuff would work but not in a competitive sport environment.  There was part in the video where the Wing Chun attacks the eye and another one where he attacks the groin.  I wouldn't exactly call it anti-grappling though. Other than the eye strike and attack to the groin, the rest of that video is trash in terms of anti-grappling.   Real anti-grappling techniques do the following:

Prevent your opponent from grabbing you.
Reversing your opponent's grappling technique.
Avoiding your opponent's attempted grabs completely by moving out of range.
The majority of what was in that video wouldn't defend against an Olympic wrestler's shoot.  The thing I hate about videos like this is that they always shows the techniques on people who don't know how to wrestle or shoot for the legs.  These videos are always demonstrated on non-wrestlers and non-grapplers.


----------



## Vajramusti

Tez3 said:


> A KO with a punch to the nose, that's novel. I suppose it's because it breaks the bone and sends it into the brain?


-------------------------------------------------------------
In the wing chun that  I do-keep your structure squared- punch THROUGH the nose area-centerline-then punch withe other hand for insurance-
it can jar  the brain-ina self defense situation-


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Some of that stuff would work but not in a competitive sport environment.  There was part in the video where the Wing Chun attacks the eye and another one where he attacks the groin.  I wouldn't exactly call it anti-grappling though. Other than the eye strike and attack to the groin, the rest of that video is trash in terms of anti-grappling.   Real anti-grappling techniques do the following:
> 
> Prevent your opponent from grabbing you.
> Reversing your opponent's grappling technique.
> Avoiding your opponent's attempted grabs completely by moving out of range.
> The majority of what was in that video wouldn't defend against an Olympic wrestler's shoot.  The thing I hate about videos like this is that they always shows the techniques on people who don't know how to wrestle or shoot for the legs.  These videos are always demonstrated on non-wrestlers and non-grapplers.



Uh, you're going to have to be HIGHLY skilled to properly defend against an *Olympic* wrestler's shot. You honestly have to be pretty skilled to defend against a collegiate wrestler's shot. Wrestlers are take down masters. You're not going to learn how to stop takedowns like that in some karate/Kung fu school. Heaven help you if that wrestler learned submission grappling like leg locks, arm bars, or chokes.

Frankly, you need to learn wrestling to stop wrestling.

Which is why videos like that are so bad. Their counters are a complete fantasy performed by people who are no where close to the technical level of even a decent wrestler.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Uh, you're going to have to be HIGHLY skilled to properly defend against an *Olympic* wrestler's shot. You honestly have to be pretty skilled to defend against a collegiate wrestler's shot. Wrestlers are take down masters. You're not going to learn how to stop takedowns like that in some karate/Kung fu school. Heaven help you if that wrestler learned submission grappling like leg locks, arm bars, or chokes.
> 
> *Frankly, you need to learn wrestling to stop wrestling.*
> 
> Which is why videos like that are so bad. Their counters are a complete fantasy performed by people who are no where close to the technical level of even a decent wrestler.


I agree with everything except the above statement.  To stop a wrestler, you need to learn some proper grappling skills.  Judo, sambo, BJJ, wrestling, shiu jiao... something legit.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I agree with everything except the above statement.  To stop a wrestler, you need to learn some proper grappling skills.  Judo, sambo, BJJ, wrestling, shiu jiao... something legit.



Yeah that's what meant. In my head I sometimes view those various styles as forms of wrestling, but I know that's not entirely accurate.

I actually rolled against a former collegiate wrestler a few days ago. Thank god for the guard is all I'm going to say.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Uh, you're going to have to be HIGHLY skilled to properly defend against an *Olympic* wrestler's shot. You honestly have to be pretty skilled to defend against a collegiate wrestler's shot. Wrestlers are take down masters. You're not going to learn how to stop takedowns like that in some karate/Kung fu school. Heaven help you if that wrestler learned submission grappling like leg locks, arm bars, or chokes.
> 
> Frankly, you need to learn wrestling to stop wrestling.
> 
> Which is why videos like that are so bad. Their counters are a complete fantasy performed by people who are no where close to the technical level of even a decent wrestler.



I agree with you with being highly skilled in order to defend against a collegiate wrestler's shot.  You can learn how to stop takedowns using your own form but you have to practice with someone who really knows how to shoot and not someone that is training the same striking art that you are taking.  Even though I do Kung Fu, I spar with a Sanda group from time to time that likes to do shoots and other grappling take downs.  It helps me to learn how to use my Kung Fu to defend against it.  Most martial art students don't know how to shoot properly which is why there are so many people that think they can escape it.

With all of that said, I would never, NEVER, *NEVER*,  try to defend against or counter a shoot by punching.  Anyone that has a video or a martial arts demo that uses punches as a defense doesn't understand shooting.  Anyone that takes a high narrow stance when fighting is just asking to be taken down by surprise.  

This is a video of my brother who was a collegiate wrestler explaining basic shoot defense





This is a video of my brother in action.  If you don't know how to defend against a shoot then you better learn how to escape from the submissions.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with you with being highly skilled in order to defend against a collegiate wrestler's shot.  You can learn how to stop takedowns using your own form but you have to practice with someone who really knows how to shoot and not someone that is training the same striking art that you are taking.  Even though I do Kung Fu, I spar with a Sanda group from time to time that likes to do shoots and other grappling take downs.  It helps me to learn how to use my Kung Fu to defend against it.  Most martial art students don't know how to shoot properly which is why there are so many people that think they can escape it.
> 
> With all of that said, I would never, NEVER, *NEVER*,  try to defend against or counter a shoot by punching.  Anyone that has a video or a martial arts demo that uses punches as a defense doesn't understand shooting.  Anyone that takes a high narrow stance when fighting is just asking to be taken down by surprise.
> 
> This is a video of my brother who was a collegiate wrestler explaining basic shoot defense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a video of my brother in action.  If you don't know how to defend against a shoot then you better learn how to escape from the submissions.



Nice vids. Interestingly, we have a similar system for setting up the guillotine in Bjj.

Yes, you are quite correct about punches and narrow stances. Again, its complete fantasy. I think the problem is that people who practice Eastern arts don't respect the technical level of wrestling, and think its just some dumb brawler trying to tackle from 20 feet away. Wrestling is as technical as any martial art out there, and wrestlers apply their art in a highly efficient and practical manner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou
They probably don't have the respect because if you think of a time where people lived in villages, carried hiking sticks, and knives then the last thing you would want to do is shoot on someone.  That's a good way to get stabbed in the back.  But in today's society not many people walk around with knives so the risk of being stabbed like that is really low.  It only takes a few seconds to go for someone's legs, up root them, put them on their back, mount them and pound their face. The thing about being on your back is that you can't do any of the stuff that make punches powerful.


----------



## Tez3

Tez3 said:


> ...................... I suppose it's because it breaks the bone and sends it into the brain?




Dear Johhnynotenglish, that's a joke by the way based on the tired old martial arts clichés. The little emoticon tells you it's not for real.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> To stop a wrestler, you need to learn some proper grappling skills.  Judo, sambo, BJJ, wrestling, shiu jiao... something legit.



Agree! Not only the "wrestling skill" but also the "wrestling experience" as well. In order to develop your wrestling experience, you will need to wrestle a lot.

Even if your opponent has already held on your leg, with your "wrestling experience", you can still do a lot of valid counters. In the following clip, many wrestling skills (not just one) are used to deal with the "single leg".


----------



## D.Cobb

What I don't get in all of this is, if you train a system that you believe has stood the test of time, then why try to change it. It's the karate-ka that adopts boxing stances and the WC guy that adopts some manner of ground fighting, and the Judo-ka that adopts boxing etc. The big problem is that if you can't devote as much time to your new art as did to your old one, then when the time comes to use it you will find your skill set lacking. In some cases, you may even end up being substandard in your original system as well... Do what you do and do it well, as the truth is if you ever need it, chances are the attacker won't be able to get past your intrinsic first line of defence.


----------



## wckf92

D.Cobb said:


> Do what you do and do it well



wise words!


----------



## Steve

Nothing wrong with cross training to address gaps.  I don't see anything wrong with a judoka cross training with boxing or karate.  @D.Cobb, you seem to be suggesting that cross training is a bad idea.   I disagree.  It's a viable choice and I know many martial artists who cross train with great success.  

The problem arises if a judoka with no striking experience invents an anti-striking judo chop system, fails to test this new system and then teaches that system to others.


----------



## geezer

Generalist or specialist? The choice is totally up to you. It doesn't have to be like the old cliche, choosing between being the specialist who knows everything about nothing, or being the generalist who knows nothing about everything. Most of us fall somewhere in between. While it's recommendable to have a core system that you are very solid at, it is also advisable to, in the words of Sun Tzu, "know your enemy..."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have posted this clip twice and this is the 3rd time that I put it up. If one cares about anti-grappling, he should also care about "not to be on the bottom". IMO, that's a very very important anti-grappling skill.


We trained on not being grabbed at all.  Grappling works only if the opponent can grab you.  If we can prevent the grab then we can defeat the grappling without having to actually grapple to do it. We focus on tons of escapes and counters to avoid being brought down to the ground. This is a good example of what we try to accomplish in Jow Ga.  And like you say abot "not to be on the bottom"  Jow Ga takes into consideration that if we get into a fight that there may be 2 or more people involved, and being on the ground isn't an advantage for us.  For some people they like it as you'll see in the video, but for strikers, it's about not being on the ground and not being grabbed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> We trained on not being grabbed at all.


The question is, can you always prevent "clinch" and "ground"? You can't "anti" anything if you are not good in the thing that you try to "anti".

I don't believe that "anti-grappling" is possible. But I do believe that to use grappling skill to "anti-striking" is possible. The reason is simple. The moment that a "clinch" is established, the moment that the striking game is over and the grappling game starts.

In the following picture, it's easy to see that the striking is no longer effective. Whoever can use leg skill to take the other down, the ground game will start.


----------



## Jake104

The never ending debate rages on. For me striking "taste great" and grappling is "less filling". That's why I like both.

If I can break an arm while dropping elbows, I'm completely satisfied.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This short clip proves that even with gloves on, take down can be effective after a proper clinch has been established.


----------



## Jake104

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This short clip proves that even with gloves on, take down can be effective after a proper clinch has been established.


That's great for the ring. Problem is in the real world now your grappling on the ground and may be vulnerable to outside attack from his friends, buddies, or maybe even random guy walking by that wants to kick somebody in the head?. In the street I want to use the ground as a weapon to end the fight. I want to slam there face on the concrete. Its still a "take-down" but with a different intent.

Or

What if he had a knife and you take him down like that? You may not even know you're stabbed till it's to late. SWIM always carries at least a knife.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

- in the real world now your grappling on the ground and may be vulnerable to outside attack from his friends, buddies, or maybe even random guy walking by that wants to kick somebody in the head?.

Agree!

- In the street I want to use the ground as a weapon to end the fight. I want to slam there face on the concrete. Its still a "take-down" but with a different intent.

Agree!

- What if he had a knife and you take him down like that? You may not even know you're stabbed till it's to late. SWIM always carries at least a knife.

Agree!

No argument from me. Just to add one more thing, in street fight, "mobility" is very important. Not only you may have to run away from "flying bullets",






you may also have to run away from "fat cops chasing" (or may be in the reverse order).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> he question is, can you always prevent "clinch" and "ground"?


 We can prevent most clinches and most attempts to take us to the ground.  If someone does take us to the ground, the goal is to escape and get off the ground as quickly as possible.  The goal isn't to win the fight wrestling. I spar with people who shoot and try to do take downs.  I've never been taken down with the exception of one trip which I quickly got back up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> get off the ground as quickly as possible.


Sometime it's not that easy to get back up. Many throws can be used to set up "side mount".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime it's not that easy to get back up. Many throws can be used to set up "side mount".


 That's true it's not always easy to get back up but for our style that's the rule. Logically speaking if my grappling skills are less than my opponent then staying on the ground is a definite way to lose.  Even though we have some ground techniques we aren't wrestlers. 

The type of clinch that's in the video is a NO, NO for us, if we ever found ourselves in that type of clinch then we did something wrong. We understand that it's impossible to get out of every clinch, so we work hard in not getting into one in the first place.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> We can prevent most clinches and most attempts to take us to the ground.  If someone does take us to the ground, the goal is to escape and get off the ground as quickly as possible.  The goal isn't to win the fight wrestling. I spar with people who shoot and try to do take downs.  I've never been taken down with the exception of one trip which I quickly got back up.


Who's 'we?"   How do you know you can prevent a clinch and most takedowns?  How many times have you used your technique in a self defense situation to avoid the clinch or takedown?    when you say 'we' are you referring to you the jow ga collective?  Even if someone who trains jow ga can effectively thwart a competent takedown attempt, doesn't mean you can do it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> I spar with people who shoot and try to do take downs. I've never been taken down with the exception of one trip which I quickly got back up.


If you've only ever been taken down once, then you aren't spending enough time sparring with good grapplers.

This has nothing to do with whether you _want_ to spend time fighting on the ground. You don't want to get punched in the face either, but if you told me that you had never been hit in sparring except for a glancing blow one time, I'd say that you haven't been sparring with enough good strikers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you've only ever been taken down once, then you aren't spending enough time sparring with good grapplers.


I've only been taken down once because I understand the limitations of grappling and how to stay within those limitations. I understand what makes grappling works and what is needed to make it work.  Punching and kicking is different because it only requires that the fist or kick reaches the opponent.  It can be done even when in clinches. Grapplers are more limited.  They can't wrestle or take you to the ground for the ground game unless they grab you.  If you don't think that this is true then, try to grapple without grabbing.  Let me know how that works.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> That's true it's not always easy to get back up but for our style that's the rule. Logically speaking if my grappling skills are less than my opponent then staying on the ground is a definite way to lose.  Even though we have some ground techniques we aren't wrestlers.
> 
> The type of clinch that's in the video is a NO, NO for us, if we ever found ourselves in that type of clinch then we did something wrong. We understand that it's impossible to get out of every clinch, so we work hard in not getting into one in the first place.



Actually being under side control is not a style thing.

Everybody wants out from there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Who's 'we?" How do you know you can prevent a clinch and most takedowns? How many times have you used your technique in a self defense situation to avoid the clinch or takedown? when you say 'we' are you referring to you the jow ga collective? Even if someone who trains jow ga can effectively thwart a competent takedown attempt, doesn't mean you can do it.



When I say we, I'm referring to what is taught in most Jow Ga schools (but mainly in the one I go to) and the fact that many of our forms has techniques that specifically addresses attacks that involve grabbing.  I've use my techniques every time I spar against someone do defend against them from grabbing me or at least having a grab that lasts long enough for them to pull me in.  As far as the success that other Jow Ga students have with preventing the take down, that's something that I can't control. Each fighter is going to be different and have different success rates from 0% - 100%

I'm not saying that Jow Ga is the best Anti Grappling style ever.  I'm just saying that we train hard with it mainly because there is a lot in our style that addresses the takedowns.  These techniques are everywhere in our forms and I can't think of one form that doesn't have it.  According to the story that the sifus hand down, the founder of the style didn't like people grabbing him.

In a real life self-defense situation.  I would have no problem with attacking the groin or digging my fingers into the eyes of my attacker if that allows me to get off the ground. Biting is fair game as well. If I can grab and break a finger then that's find too. Whatever it takes to be free of the grab.


----------



## Steve

So. Then.  Just the mythology of your style.  Like when bjj guys say they can compete in Mma without cross training.
Your position represents just another example of anti grappling at its finest.  

I'm sure the wc anti grapplers train hard too.  Doesn't mean any if it will work. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime it's not that easy to get back up. Many throws can be used to set up "side mount".



Agreed. I often get a chuckle from listening to people who say that their ground training amounts to getting back up once in a blue moon. Meanwhile, a grappler's entire training revolves around keeping you on the ground once they put you there. Their goal is to make sure you never get up again.

Whether that's a Judoka throwing you so hard to the concrete that you're unable to get back up, or a wrestler taking you down and pinning you, or a submission grappler taking you down and snapping your leg, there's a very remote chance that you're going to be able to hop up to continue the fight unless you're properly trained.


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> That's great for the ring. Problem is in the real world now your grappling on the ground and may be vulnerable to outside attack from his friends, buddies, or maybe even random guy walking by that wants to kick somebody in the head?



And what if your friends are there to prevent his buddies from jumping in, or preventing you from getting kicked in the head by a random drunk person? 

You do also understand that there's quite a few grappling positions that allow you to disengage quickly in case some other jackass decides to jump in right? Ever hear of knee on belly? How about knee on sternum?



> In the street I want to use the ground as a weapon to end the fight. I want to slam there face on the concrete. Its still a "take-down" but with a different intent.



So who's likely to win that battle? The grappler or the non-grappler?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> I've only been taken down once because I understand the limitations of grappling and how to stay within those limitations. I understand what makes grappling works and what is needed to make it work.


I can guarantee that experienced MMA fighters, especially those with a grappling background, understand the limitations of grappling at a much deeper level than you do - yet they still get taken down.



JowGaWolf said:


> Punching and kicking is different because it only requires that the fist or kick reaches the opponent. It can be done even when in clinches. Grapplers are more limited. They can't wrestle or take you to the ground for the ground game unless they grab you.



Punching and kicking, just like grappling, depends on having the correct range. Too far away and you can't punch, kick, or grapple. Too close in and your punches and kicks lose effectiveness.

One advantage to grappling is that closing the distance in a fight is easier than backpedaling. Even if you have the skill and open space to backpedal, it's very hard to strike effectively while moving backwards. (It can be done, but it's an advanced skill and not reliable.)



JowGaWolf said:


> In a real life self-defense situation. I would have no problem with attacking the groin or digging my fingers into the eyes of my attacker if that allows me to get off the ground. Biting is fair game as well. If I can grab and break a finger then that's find too. Whatever it takes to be free of the grab.



Well, yeah. Speaking as a grappler, I also would have no problem with attacking the groin or eyes or fingers (or even biting) in a real self-defense situation if the circumstances required it. I've practiced all those things in a grappling context. As useful as those tactics can be, none of them offers any sort of guarantee of neutralizing a grab or a dominant position on the ground.


----------



## geezer

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can guarantee that experienced MMA fighters, especially those with a grappling background, understand the limitations of grappling at a much deeper level than you do - yet they still get taken down.



Tony, don't cloud the issue with _the facts._ His mind is made up!

Some posters here seem to think that _only their art _--whatever it is-- has all the answers. There are both a few grapplers and strikers in this group. The rest of us also appreciate what the other arts, at their best, have to offer (as well as loving what we do). You and I are in this latter group. And from what I've seen the evidence supports this perspective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The type of clinch that's in the video is a NO, NO for us, if we ever found ourselves in that type of clinch then we did something wrong. We understand that it's impossible to get out of every clinch, so we work hard in not getting into one in the first place.


Some throws does not require any "clinch".

When you move one leg behind your opponent's "both" legs, with your upper body rotation, you can take your opponent down without any "clinch".






When you obtains your opponent's leading leg, if you just hook on his back standing leg, he will be down. You don't need "clinch" on this either.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> One advantage to grappling is that closing the distance in a fight is easier than backpedaling.


Agree!

When you shoot single leg at your opponent, he may step back, lead you into the emptiness, and kiss the ground. When your opponent comes in and punches you, he is doing the "closing the distance" for you. His leading leg will be exactly where you can reach.

There is a big difference between:

- When you try to grab your opponent's leg, he steps back, vs.
- When your opponent steps in, you grab his leg.


----------



## Phobius

Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.

If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.

Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.

If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.

When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.

And so on...

The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.

Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.

Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.
> 
> If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.
> 
> Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.
> 
> If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.
> 
> When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.
> 
> And so on...
> 
> The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.
> 
> Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.
> 
> Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.



The simple reality is that if you're concerned about fighting against an expert grappler, go learn how to grapple. If you're concerned about getting knocked out by a striker, go learn how to strike. If you want to learn how to throw someone to the ground, go learn how to do it. If you want to learn how to fight with weapons, go learn how to fight with weapons. 

We don't live in a time of secrets and hidden styles anymore. If your style isn't providing something that you feel that you desperately need, seek it out elsewhere from experts in the field. Making up a bunch of BS and claiming that it can beat the best is dangerous and counterproductive.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> So. Then.  Just the mythology of your style.  Like when bjj guys say they can compete in Mma without cross training.
> Your position represents just another example of anti grappling at its finest.
> 
> I'm sure the wc anti grapplers train hard too.  Doesn't mean any if it will work.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Jow Ga and WC are not the same. From what I can tell from seeing other WC fighters they try to punch their way out of a grab or a shoot.  In Jow Ga our anti-grab techniques aren't based on punching. All of the techniques that I know involve us to use our hands in a non-punching, grappling manner to either escape or counter.  Some our techniques are the same that some wrestlers and BJJ practitioners use.  So if those methods and techniques are considered mythology and useless then they are equally as useless in the other other martial arts such as BJJ, Judo, Tai Chi, and karate that uses them including non-martial arts wrestling.

What amazes me is that people think Chinese martial arts don't have grappling or anti-grappling techniques, as if since the very birth of Kung Fu that none of the Kung Fu practitioners, warriors, and soldiers were never grabbed, and that someone would create a fighting system with the mindset that the attacker would never try to grab, tackle, or get on top of victim to do harm.  In other words not 1 person in china from the 17th century BC to present day thinks that someone would do that.  Even with all of the wars that were going on.   

So as old as these  fighting systems are the founders thought that it would never happen and as a result had no reason to address grappling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some throws does not require any "clinch".
> 
> When you move one leg behind your opponent's "both" legs, with your upper body rotation, you can take your opponent down without any "clinch".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you obtains your opponent's leading leg, if you just hook on his back standing leg, he will be down. You don't need "clinch" on this either.


I understand this.  I think I have a video of me doing a similar move like that during a sparring session.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.
> 
> If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.
> 
> Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.
> 
> If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.
> 
> When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.
> 
> And so on...
> 
> The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.
> 
> Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.
> 
> Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.



This is why we (my school) trains with another martial arts school who knows how to grapple and uses it often to fight. It doesn't make sense to train anti-grappling techniques by having strikers trying to grab you.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> One advantage to grappling is that closing the distance in a fight is easier than backpedaling. Even if you have the skill and open space to backpedal, it's very hard to strike effectively while moving backwards. (It can be done, but it's an advanced skill and not reliable.)


I understand this. My sifu understands this which is why he will always get onto his students if they backpedal.  Backpedaling will just make things worse especially if the person is a grappler.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a grappler, I also would have no problem with attacking the groin or eyes or fingers (or even biting) in a real self-defense situation if the circumstances required it


  This is a good thing, that means that in a real self-defense situation you are less likely to put those things in range for someone to attack those areas.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I can guarantee that experienced MMA fighters, especially those with a grappling background, understand the limitations of grappling at a much deeper level than you do - yet they still get taken down.


  MMA fighters often have grappling skills that will allow them to win the fight on the ground (I don't know of any that don't) so for them the ground game is an option to victory meaning that it's ok for them to be taken to the ground.  For the fighting style I train, it's not ok to be on the ground so our efforts in training is geared towards not being on the ground or escaping if we are on the ground.  Most MMA fighters will stay on the ground and work the ground game so to them it doesn't matter if someone takes them to the ground.  The Gracies have shown their willingness to be on the ground.  They don't try to out stirke the strikers because their strength is in the ground game.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.
> 
> If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.
> 
> Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.
> 
> If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.
> 
> When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.
> 
> And so on...
> 
> The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.
> 
> Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.
> 
> Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.




There is crazy stuff in bjj and even mma that you can do to noobs that you wouldn't do to anybody with grappling skill.

One example is guillotine to guard which almost never works. But at one stage there was a main component of takedown defence.

The reason there is that for ages nobody really defended the move and just flailed around.

So my point is that sometimes you can get an unrealistic idea of what works and what dosent due to the people you train with.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> This is why we (my school) trains with another martial arts school who knows how to grapple and uses it often to fight. It doesn't make sense to train anti-grappling techniques by having strikers trying to grab you.



Top grapplers are top anti grapplers. Just like top boxers are also good at avoiding being hit. Part of the game yeah?

Now top grapplers get taken down more than twice in their lifetime.

So you either have a defence that is better than everybody else. And nobody has thought of.
Or.
The guys taking you down are not very good.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> MMA fighters often have grappling skills that will allow them to win the fight on the ground (I don't know of any that don't) so for them the ground game is an option to victory meaning that it's ok for them to be taken to the ground. For the fighting style I train, it's not ok to be on the ground so our efforts in training is geared towards not being on the ground or escaping if we are on the ground. Most MMA fighters will stay on the ground and work the ground game so to them it doesn't matter if someone takes them to the ground. The Gracies have shown their willingness to be on the ground. They don't try to out stirke the strikers because their strength is in the ground game.



OK  only if you follow the Gracie module. I do mma and have moved more into folkstyle wrestling because it has a strong component of anti grappling


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> There is crazy stuff in bjj and even mma that you can do to noobs that you wouldn't do to anybody with grappling skill.
> 
> One example is guillotine to guard which almost never works. But at one stage there was a main component of takedown defence.
> 
> The reason there is that for ages nobody really defended the move and just flailed around.
> 
> So my point is that sometimes you can get an unrealistic idea of what works and what dosent due to the people you train with.


I always think of the Frankenstein choke.  Never seen it work on anyone whose trained longer than a few weeks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Top grapplers are top anti grapplers


To me the Top Grapplers out Grapple others grapplers.  The top boxers out box other grapplers.   An anti-grappler is some who doesn't want to grapple.  An anti-striker is someone who doesn't want strike.  The term Anti means against.  So in that light, any person who doesn't want to take a fight to the ground in the form of wrestling is Anti-Grappler.

Top grapplers are taken down multiple times because the ground game is their strong suit.  They aren't against wrestling or grappling. They thrive in it, so they can't be an Anti-grappler and a grappler at the same time.  Remember Anti-means against.  When MMA and BJJ guys fight they want the fight on the ground because they know that they can out grapple someone.  For me to get on the ground with them would be me fighting against my opponents strengths. Why would I do that?

My defense isn't better than anyone else. I respect the strengths of the grappler by not trying to fight a fight within his strengths.  MMA fighters will try to win a fight on the ground if they think they have a chance of winning it on the ground.  For me, I have no interest in winning a fight on the ground even if I think I can win it.  For my mindset and my training there's no reason me to be on the ground AT ALL.  MMA fighters will ground in pound.  Ground and pound is not an option for me.

My defense against someone who is trying to take me down to the ground is to lower the zone in which they have to shoot, which gives me more options to redirect their energy.  By lowering my stance I'm forcing them to shoot lower than what they should be shooting, this helps to keep my waist away from them.  I also work on quick feet movement and techniques that prevent them from closing their grabs by tying up one arm.  If I can cause a delay in them being able to close their arms or hands around me then I have added more time for me to escape.  

MMA, BJJ, Judo, and some other fightng styles are all about the grab and taking the fight to the ground to out grapple their opponent.  Anti-Grapplers don't want to be on the ground so training how to not be on the ground takes priority over training to win a fight on the ground.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I always think of the Frankenstein choke.  Never seen it work on anyone whose trained longer than a few weeks.



I have been known to try to sneak on a standing gooseneck from time to time.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> To me the Top Grapplers out Grapple others grapplers.  The top boxers out box other grapplers.   An anti-grappler is some who doesn't want to grapple.  An anti-striker is someone who doesn't want strike.  The term Anti means against.  So in that light, any person who doesn't want to take a fight to the ground in the form of wrestling is Anti-Grappler.
> 
> Top grapplers are taken down multiple times because the ground game is their strong suit.  They aren't against wrestling or grappling. They thrive in it, so they can't be an Anti-grappler and a grappler at the same time.  Remember Anti-means against.  When MMA and BJJ guys fight they want the fight on the ground because they know that they can out grapple someone.  For me to get on the ground with them would be me fighting against my opponents strengths. Why would I do that?
> 
> My defense isn't better than anyone else. I respect the strengths of the grappler by not trying to fight a fight within his strengths.  MMA fighters will try to win a fight on the ground if they think they have a chance of winning it on the ground.  For me, I have no interest in winning a fight on the ground even if I think I can win it.  For my mindset and my training there's no reason me to be on the ground AT ALL.  MMA fighters will ground in pound.  Ground and pound is not an option for me.
> 
> My defense against someone who is trying to take me down to the ground is to lower the zone in which they have to shoot, which gives me more options to redirect their energy.  By lowering my stance I'm forcing them to shoot lower than what they should be shooting, this helps to keep my waist away from them.  I also work on quick feet movement and techniques that prevent them from closing their grabs by tying up one arm.  If I can cause a delay in them being able to close their arms or hands around me then I have added more time for me to escape.
> 
> MMA, BJJ, Judo, and some other fightng styles are all about the grab and taking the fight to the ground to out grapple their opponent.  Anti-Grapplers don't want to be on the ground so training how to not be on the ground takes priority over training to win a fight on the ground.



Go have a look at the video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> OK  only if you follow the Gracie module. I do mma and have moved more into folkstyle wrestling because it has a strong component of anti grappling


When you do MMA, is there a grappling fighting style that you turn to like BJJ or Judo?  I ask because I know that the MMA guys are more rounded fighters than those who only practice striking.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> When you do MMA, is there a grappling fighting style that you turn to like BJJ or Judo?  I ask because I know that the MMA guys are more rounded fighters than those who only practice striking.



The fighting style is mma. The hitting on the deck changes the dynamics a bit. 

For us we are leaning towards that folkstyle with submissions. But there are bits and pieces from every where.


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> So who's likely to win that battle? The grappler or the non grappler?


Chuck Norris! He always wins. Now what???


----------



## Jake104

If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?



Sakuraba is a grappler.

And so is Chuck. He is a black belt in Bjj under the Machado brothers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Jake104 said:


> If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?


When fighting you always fight against your opponents weakness.
 If your opponet's weakness is in his legs then you attack the legs.  If they are weak in the area of endurance then you attack their endurance.  Attacking a weakness can be done by both grappler an non-grappler.  If you fighting against your opponents strength then you are at high risk of losing.  If you fight where you are weak, then you are going to lose.

The Sakuraba vs Royler Gracie fight is a good example of this.  Sakuraba fought Royler where he was weak, which resulted in 2 minutes of damaging striking attacks. Here striking wins

Here is another example of fighting someone where they are weak. Here Grappling wins.





There is no set rule or guarantee that grappler will beat a non-grappler or that a non-grappler will beat the grappler.  There are more than enough videos showing strikers who KO grapplers just as there are more than enough videos showing grapplers submitting strikers.  If you fight where you are weak then you'll lose.  If you fight where your oppoent is weak they they will lose.


----------



## Steve

I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out.  I wouldn't mind seeing a few.  typically, as in the example of Sakuraba, the "striker" is actually a well rounded fighter who is competent in both striking and grappling. 

Which brings us full circle back to the topic of anti-grappling.  The best "anti-grapplers" are just competent grapplers who are also competent strikers.  Style is irrelevant.  Wing Chun anti-grappling, at least the examples shared in this thread, are dangerously misguided.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out.


When a grappler gives up his striking ability, he will not exchange punches with his striking opponent, his hands can guard his head nicely, it's difficult to knock him out.

It's easy to have the following test.

- If you can hit on your opponent's head (no need to knock your opponent down, a punch will be just fine), you win that round.
- If your opponent can get you into a successful clinch before you can land a punch on his head (body punch won't count in this test), he wins that round.

Test this for 15 rounds, record the result. Repeat this testing for 100 times (15 x 100 = 1500 rounds) and then draw your own conclusion.


----------



## Drose427

Steve said:


> I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out.  I wouldn't mind seeing a few.  typically, as in the example of Sakuraba, the "striker" is actually a well rounded fighter who is competent in both striking and grappling.
> 
> Which brings us full circle back to the topic of anti-grappling.  The best "anti-grapplers" are just competent grapplers who are also competent strikers.  Style is irrelevant.  Wing Chun anti-grappling, at least the examples shared in this thread, are dangerously misguided.



When I've seen it happen(specifically in the Early UFC's, where sumo and wrestling was fairly common) they basically just swarmed the grappler to all hell. Grappler would grab something, get hit and lose it. It was one thing that and Royce stand out, for the most part he'd get rocked and still hold on to whatever he had for dear life.

Its happened a few times in modern MMA, but thats a poor representation cause now guys are at least competent in both areas. Their grappling might be atrocious, but its enough that they wont put themselves in bad positions


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out.


Just do a youtube search for top strikers in the UFC or Top MMA strikers you'll see.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Just do a youtube search for top strikers in the UFC or Top MMA strikers you'll see.


There are no strikers in the ufc who aren't also competent grapplers.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> There are no strikers in the ufc who aren't also competent grapplers.



The level is so high that the non competent grapplers are still pretty competent.


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Chuck Norris! He always wins. Now what???



He is a massive bjj nut rider by the way.

Chuck Norris Earns 3rd Degree Black Belt in BJJ | FIGHTLAND


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> There are no strikers in the ufc who aren't also competent grapplers.


Look at the method in which they are beating their opponents. It's about what they are strongest in that determines if they are strikers or grapplers. Anderson Silva knows grappling but you can tell by his fights that he know and understands his strengths as a striker.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Look at the method in which they are beating their opponents. It's about what they are strongest in that determines if they are strikers or grapplers. Anderson Silva knows grappling but you can tell by his fights that he know and understands his strengths as a striker.


how do you think Floyd may weather would do in an Mma match against anyone in the ufc?  I think he would have zero chance of winning because he is not well rounded.  Terrific pure boxer.   One dimensional mixed martial artist.  He would be next to helpless. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> how do you think Floyd may weather would do in an Mma match against anyone in the ufc?  I think he would have zero chance of winning because he is not well rounded.  Terrific pure boxer.   One dimensional mixed martial artist.  He would be next to helpless.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really?  that doesn't make sense. You are picking someone from an entirely different sport where kicking, throwing, tripping, elbows, kneeing, and sweeping is not allowed and then put that person in a fight where it is allowed.  That's not even a comparison. If I asked how would a grappler do against Floyd May Weather if the grappler had to follow boxing rules?  You'll be all upset that the scenario takes the grappler out of his element.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Really?  that doesn't make sense. You are picking someone from an entirely different sport where kicking, throwing, tripping, elbows, kneeing, and sweeping is not allowed and then put that person in a fight where it is allowed.  That's not even a comparison. If I asked how would a grappler do against Floyd May Weather if the grappler had to follow boxing rules?  You'll be all upset that the scenario takes the grappler out of his element.


The point is that there are no pure strikers or pure grapplers competing at an elite level in MMA.  They are all well rounded.  You take a pure striker, even one of the best ever, and drop him in MMA, and it's ridiculous.  As you say, it doesn't even make sense. 

A pure grappler would flounder, as well.   Remember, my comment was in response to your post suggesting that the UFC has a lot of examples of strikers defeating grapplers.  I disagree, and am asserting that anyone at an elite level of MMA is well rounded.  Further, the grappling skills create opportunity for effective striking, and vice versa.

And I've still not seen very many (can't recall any) videos of a competent striker with no grappling experience ever knocking out a competent grappler with no striking experience.  I've seen plenty of videos of the converse, where grapplers take advantage of striker's discomfort in a clinch or on the ground.   I'm sure there are some out there, and wouldn't mind taking a look.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The point is that there are no pure strikers or pure grapplers competing at an elite level in MMA


  I never said that there were pure strikers or grapplers in MMA. 



Steve said:


> They are all well rounded. You take a pure striker, even one of the best ever, and drop him in MMA, and it's ridiculous


  If you put a pure grappler in a boxing ring and have that grappler fight according to boxing rules, then the grappler will rule.  It doesn't have anything about being well rounded because the MMA and Boxing have different rules.  Put an well rounded MMA fighter into a boxing ring with a professional boxer, fighting by boxing rules, then that MMA fighter will be at a disadvantage.  Trying to compare the 2 fighters makes no sense, not because of the skill level but because they aren't the same sports. 



Steve said:


> I disagree, and am asserting that anyone at an elite level of MMA is well rounded.


This doesn't matter either the fact that people get KOed in MMA means that striking is going one.  If Anderson Silva hits knocks out a fighter with a kick, elbow, knee, or a punch then that means striking is happening.  It doesn't matter if he has a ground game or not because it was the strike that caused the KO.



Steve said:


> And I've still not seen very many (can't recall any) videos of a competent striker with no grappling experience ever knocking out a competent grappler with no striking experience.


  Once again.  If Anderson Silva knocks out a fighter with a kick, elbow, knee, or a punch then it's the striking that knocked him out not the grappling.   

If you and I were to get into a fight and you punched me in my face and knocked me out.  It was your striking that did it, and not your ground game.

The fact that there are KO's in MMA means that someone is striking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

If you knock someone out with a punch, kick, elbow, or knee then that is striking.  It doesn't matter what grappling skills they have, it was the striking skills that knocked them out.  If you knock someone out without punching, kicking, elbowing, or kneeing the it's the grappling skills that knocked them out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

1st round knock outs





Gracie Fighter knocked out while trying to grapple





More KO, caused by striking


----------



## JowGaWolf

More KOs caused by striking not Grappling


----------



## Jake104

Steve said:


> how do you think Floyd may weather would do in an Mma match against anyone in the ufc?  I think he would have zero chance of winning because he is not well rounded.  Terrific pure boxer.   One dimensional mixed martial artist.  He would be next to helpless.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd pay to see Ronda Rousey kick his butt. Or Chuck Norris.


----------



## Jake104

Steve said:


> The point is that there are no pure strikers or pure grapplers competing at an elite level in MMA.  They are all well rounded.  You take a pure striker, even one of the best ever, and drop him in MMA, and it's ridiculous.  As you say, it doesn't even make sense.
> 
> A pure grappler would flounder, as well.   Remember, my comment was in response to your post suggesting that the UFC has a lot of examples of strikers defeating grapplers.  I disagree, and am asserting that anyone at an elite level of MMA is well rounded.  Further, the grappling skills create opportunity for effective striking, and vice versa.
> 
> And I've still not seen very many (can't recall any) videos of a competent striker with no grappling experience ever knocking out a competent grappler with no striking experience.  I've seen plenty of videos of the converse, where grapplers take advantage of striker's discomfort in a clinch or on the ground.   I'm sure there are some out there, and wouldn't mind taking a look.


You got to admit well rounded MMA  strikers are way more fun to watch in the UFC. Although black belt level straight grappling is pretty cool like this.





Grappling in the UFC, or lower level tends to be pretty boring.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Floyd vs Ronda = apple and oranges


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> If you knock someone out with a punch, kick, elbow, or knee then that is striking.  It doesn't matter what grappling skills they have, it was the striking skills that knocked them out.  If you knock someone out without punching, kicking, elbowing, or kneeing the it's the grappling skills that knocked them out.


I understand now and disagree that it doesn't matter in Mma what grappling skills someone has.  I don't understand how you could think otherwise.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake104

JowGaWolf said:


> Floyd vs Ronda = apple and oranges


Yes, but what if? She would grab his butt and slam him on the concrete.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Jake104 said:


> Yes, but what if? She would grab his butt and slam him on the concrete.


I can't stand Floyd so anyone that can pound him would be entertaining.  He's got the attitude that makes people what to hit him in his mouth.  What surprises me the most is that Floyd calls out Rhonda out of all of the MMA fighters out there.  That's the one he's got to prove something to.  

Him losing to a woman would do justice to destroying his ego.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> disagree that it doesn't matter in Mma what grappling skills someone has


This is what you say



JowGaWolf said:


> If Anderson Silva hits knocks out a fighter with a kick, elbow, knee, or a punch then that means striking is happening. It doesn't matter if he has a ground game or not because it was the strike that caused the KO.


This is what I'm saying.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf, you should really watch the first Chael Sonnen vs Anderson Silva fight. Here you had a wrestler, Chael Sonnen, swarm Silva throughout the entire fight. The only thing that saved Silva was his extensive background in Bjj. Through that, he was able to utilize the guard to neutralize Sonnen's size and wrestling advantage, and ended up tapping him out with a triangle choke.

That is a textbook example of someone who is known for striking in MMA showcasing the fact that just about every fighter in elite MMA is either a high level wrestler, or a purple to black belt in Bjj (sometimes both).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou
I've saw that fight, when I was going through all those Youtube videos looking for MMA strikers.   Trying to smoother a striker is a good plan because that means you taking striking capabilities away.  Once you do that, it's all about out grappling the striker.  This is always the best move when fighting someone who is a far better Striker than you.  This is a perfect example of that where the grappler knew the danger of the Striker and didn't play into the strikers strength.





Silva is a striker that can win the game on the ground if he has to, but prefers inflicting facial damage to his opponents.  If I had to fight Anderson Silva I would only have 2 options.  Stay really far or stay really close so that I can quickly tap out when he applies the submission.  But based on some of his other fights, he would probably just let me get up so that he can have another chance at caving in my face.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> More KOs caused by striking not Grappling


Haven't seen any strikers. Lot of well rounded fighters.   Do you really not understand the difference?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Hanzou
> I've saw that fight, when I was going through all those Youtube videos looking for MMA strikers.   Trying to smoother a striker is a good plan because that means you taking striking capabilities away.  Once you do that, it's all about out grappling the striker.  This is always the best move when fighting someone who is a far better Striker than you.  This is a perfect example of that where the grappler knew the danger of the Striker and didn't play into the strikers strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silva is a striker that can win the game on the ground if he has to, but prefers inflicting facial damage to his opponents.  If I had to fight Anderson Silva I would only have 2 options.  Stay really far or stay really close so that I can quickly tap out when he applies the submission.  But based on some of his other fights, he would probably just let me get up so that he can have another chance at caving in my face.



Okay, but how exactly can Silva win the game on the ground simply as a "striker"? His fight against Dan Henderson is another example. Dan Henderson is a former Olympic wrestler. In the first round of their fight, Henderson took him to the mat and almost submitted him. What saved him? Again it was his extensive background in Bjj. Further, it can be argued that what made him such an effective striker was his grappling ability. The fact that he was probably one of the best grapplers in MMA more than likely gave him the confidence to push his striking to the level it reached.

Your argument here is dubious and bordering and sheer silliness. None of the vids you posted shows a striker with no grappling background stopping a grappler. Much less, there's no video of a traditional Chinese martial artist stepping into a ring against a MMA/Bjj fighter and shutting down his ability to grappler.

However, I just happen to have a video that shows such a contest.  The results shouldn't be a surprise for anyone;


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> You got to admit well rounded MMA  strikers are way more fun to watch in the UFC. Although black belt level straight grappling is pretty cool like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grappling in the UFC, or lower level tends to be pretty boring.



Striking fundamentally changes the grappling game. While you have to be methodical in grappling-only competitions, when striking enters the equation, you have to make sure that your opponent has no openings to strike you. That tosses a lot of the sport Bjj stuff out the window by default. 

For example, in grappling one of my favorite positions is half guard. However, in a self-defense/MMA situation, I would almost certainly never use it, at least not the way I use it in class.


----------



## geezer

Hey Hanzou... that "TCMA" guy in the clip you provided wasn't much of a striker either. Did you see him get knocked down at 2:03? It was like he was on drugs or something, and *not *the "performance enhancing" type either.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Hey Hanzou... that "TCMA" guy in the clip you provided wasn't much of a striker either. Did you see him get knocked down at 2:03? It was like he was on drugs or something, and *not *the "performance enhancing" type either.


Not only that. He didn't throw even 1 punch, 1 kick, or 1 take down through the entire match. That will be the worse nightmare for any MA guy.

That clip remind me this clip.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Haven't seen any strikers. Lot of well rounded fighters.   Do you really not understand the difference?


Dude I'm through with you. I show you videos of people getting knocked out by punches, kicks, and elbows and you tell me that you don't see any strikers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> None of the vids you posted shows a striker with no grappling background stopping a grappler. Much less, there's no video of a traditional Chinese martial artist stepping into a ring against a MMA/Bjj fighter and shutting down his ability to grappler.


1st: Being a striker doesn't mean that you can't have knowledge or a background in grappling.
2nd: A fighter doesn't have to be a striker all the time.  It's not an EITHER OR condition to be classified as a striker
3rd: The videos I showed with people getting knocked out came from striking. The only reason I showed those was because Steve said he hasn't seen striking in MMA
4th:  How did Chinese Martial Arts get in to the discussion when we were talking about MMA?

As for the video that you showed. It's clear that the guy that was taken down has never fought a grappler. He doesn't even understand the concept of the shoot, hence the high stance he took (multiple times). He also didn't understand the concept of keep your "hands up." From his initial stance he appeared to be a Wing Chun practitioner (and not a very good one nor a good fighter period)

Chinese Martial Arts have grappling in them. What do you think Shuai Jiao is?  Some of those same grappling techniques are found in multiple Chinese martial art style
People kill me when you pick an old fighting style that has been around for thousands of years, used in war, used in self-defense and make the assumption that these fighting styles never encountered someone that took them to the ground. So 1000+ years of fighting an not one person during that time thought, "HMM.  I should tackle him and wrestle him to the ground."  Children naturally wrestle against each other. So what makes you think grappling wouldn't exist in a Chinese Martial Art that was used in war? 


The reason why you don't see many Chinese Martial artist use grappling is because they neglect it.  I do Jow Ga Kung fu and we do grappling although our grappling isn't for the purpose of submitting them, but to put our opponent on the ground so we can kick them while they are down or to grab a weapon (anything that we can use to jab, smash, or hit with) and attack them while they are down. In Jow Ga we are taught that being on the ground is always bad because it takes away our mobility to fight multiple attackers.
I can tell you this much the only submission grabbling skill that I have would be Chin Na which is just simply joint locks that have the same purpose as MMA joint locks (to destroy the joint).


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Hanzou
> I've saw that fight, when I was going through all those Youtube videos looking for MMA strikers.   Trying to smoother a striker is a good plan because that means you taking striking capabilities away.  Once you do that, it's all about out grappling the striker.  This is always the best move when fighting someone who is a far better Striker than you.  This is a perfect example of that where the grappler knew the danger of the Striker and didn't play into the strikers strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silva is a striker that can win the game on the ground if he has to, but prefers inflicting facial damage to his opponents.  If I had to fight Anderson Silva I would only have 2 options.  Stay really far or stay really close so that I can quickly tap out when he applies the submission.  But based on some of his other fights, he would probably just let me get up so that he can have another chance at caving in my face.



Take Forrest griffons advice. Don't fight Anderson Silva.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Take Forrest griffons advice. Don't fight Anderson Silva.


ha ha ha.. yes that too.  One way not to lose against Anderson would be me not to fight him in the first place.  That's works for me too. lol.  The biggest thing that I admire about grappling is that it's more gentle than the striking.  By gentle, I mean you get to tap out before your joint is ripped (provided the guy isn't a douche).  With striking there's no such thing tapping out after being kicked in the face or punched in the face, not to mention all of the damage to the face and unexpected naps.  Just a lot of head trauma. 
I'll take a submission any day just because I know I would submit before I pass out from a choke or from my arm being ripped out of it's joint.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> People kill me when you pick an old fighting style that has been around for thousands of years, used in war, used in self-defense and make the assumption that these fighting styles never encountered someone that took them to the ground. So 1000+ years of fighting an not one person during that time thought, "HMM.  I should tackle him and wrestle him to the ground."  Children naturally wrestle against each other. So what makes you think grappling wouldn't exist in a Chinese Martial Art that was used in war?



Wrestling someone to the ground in a war where everyone had swords and spears and other bladed weapons would be stupid and crazy. But what makes you think _Taijiquan_ or any empty-handed TCMA was ever used in war anyway? Because their legends say so?

I don't buy it. Most TCMA "masters" in mainland China nowadays would probably fair as well as the guy Hanzou just posted. I live in China and have been all over the country. Traditional masters from Beijing to Guangzhou all do hours of forms and demo applications but never train in any realistic way and can't fight for sh!t. They also believe their own _qigong_ bs, like breaking a brick means you're a great fighter. 

That makes me doubt they were ever any good. 1k+ years of fighting and they still suck. What reason is there to believe _Taiji_ guys were killing people barehanded in wars? Because a guy named Shifu can break a brick and said so?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Dude I'm through with you. I show you videos of people getting knocked out by punches, kicks, and elbows and you tell me that you don't see any strikers.


That's true.  I don't.   I see well rounded fighters.  Think about how that applies to the topic of this thread. When a person has well rounded skills, grappling can help striking be more effective, and vice versa.  When you have well rounded skills, you are no longer a striker or a grappler.  And at an elite level, in MMA, one must be well rounded in order to compete well.  

So, yeah.   You show me videos of any high level MMA match, and I don't see what you see.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Wrestling someone to the ground in a war where everyone had swords and spears and other bladed weapons would be stupid and crazy. But what makes you think _Taijiquan_ or any empty-handed TCMA was ever used in war anyway


The same reason that our modern military practices hand to hand combat even though we have tanks, plans, missiles, grenades, snipers, machine guns, helicopters.
The military doesn't train for useless things.
Even in war it's not always guaranteed that you'll always have a weapon or that the weapon won't be damaged. This has always been the case. 
Tell this guy that hand to hand combat is useless 
What makes me think that empty-hand TCMA was ever used in war? The same reason this guy had to use hand to hand combat.



LFJ said:


> I don't buy it. Most TCMA


What you buy is up to you.  I train Jow Ga Kung Fu and I know from experience that it's a legit fighting system.  



LFJ said:


> Traditional masters from Beijing to Guangzhou all do hours of forms and demo applications but never train in any realistic way and can't fight for sh!t


That's how they train not how I train.  I dedicated 2 hours every Thursday to actually realistic fighting application. I spar against other fighting styles so that I can learn how to apply my Jow Ga to against different fighting styles.



LFJ said:


> They also believe their own _qigong_ bs, like breaking a brick means you're a great fighter


Once again that them and not me nor the fighting system I train in.  We only care about breaking faces and bones.  The only use we have for a brick is to pick one up in a fight and use it to smash someone with.



LFJ said:


> What reason is there to believe _Taiji_ guys were killing people barehanded in wars? Because a guy named Shifu can break a brick and said so?


Show me where I said Taiji was used in a war?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Wrestling someone to the ground in a war where everyone had swords and spears and other bladed weapons would be stupid and crazy. But what makes you think _Taijiquan_ or any empty-handed TCMA was ever used in war anyway? Because their legends say so?
> 
> I don't buy it. Most TCMA "masters" in mainland China nowadays would probably fair as well as the guy Hanzou just posted. I live in China and have been all over the country. Traditional masters from Beijing to Guangzhou all do hours of forms and demo applications but never train in any realistic way and can't fight for sh!t. They also believe their own _qigong_ bs, like breaking a brick means you're a great fighter.
> 
> That makes me doubt they were ever any good. 1k+ years of fighting and they still suck. What reason is there to believe _Taiji_ guys were killing people barehanded in wars? Because a guy named Shifu can break a brick and said so?


----------



## drop bear

Longsword double leg.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Longsword double leg.



This is priceless. Even swordsmen needed to defend against takedowns. Next time one of my WC buddies tells me their striking is enough to stop a takedown, I'm showing them _this!_


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> 1st: Being a striker doesn't mean that you can't have knowledge or a background in grappling.
> 2nd: A fighter doesn't have to be a striker all the time.  It's not an EITHER OR condition to be classified as a striker
> 3rd: The videos I showed with people getting knocked out came from striking. The only reason I showed those was because Steve said he hasn't seen striking in MMA
> 4th:  How did Chinese Martial Arts get in to the discussion when we were talking about MMA?



Um, we were discussing Wing Chun anti-grappling, which is a Chinese martial art.



> As for the video that you showed. It's clear that the guy that was taken down has never fought a grappler. He doesn't even understand the concept of the shoot, hence the high stance he took (multiple times). He also didn't understand the concept of keep your "hands up." From his initial stance he appeared to be a Wing Chun practitioner (and not a very good one nor a good fighter period)
> 
> Chinese Martial Arts have grappling in them. What do you think Shuai Jiao is?  Some of those same grappling techniques are found in multiple Chinese martial art style
> People kill me when you pick an old fighting style that has been around for thousands of years, used in war, used in self-defense and make the assumption that these fighting styles never encountered someone that took them to the ground. So 1000+ years of fighting an not one person during that time thought, "HMM.  I should tackle him and wrestle him to the ground."  Children naturally wrestle against each other. So what makes you think grappling wouldn't exist in a Chinese Martial Art that was used in war?



Grappling has evolved considerably since most of those Chinese TMAs were formed. So while there may be some old school grappling in traditional CMAs, its grossly outdated compared to modern grappling, which has integrated a variety of tactics and techniques.

Take Stephen Hayes' laughable counter to the guard position for example;






Just about everything about that was wrong.



> The reason why you don't see many Chinese Martial artist use grappling is because they neglect it.  I do Jow Ga Kung fu and we do grappling although our grappling isn't for the purpose of submitting them, but to put our opponent on the ground so we can kick them while they are down or to grab a weapon (anything that we can use to jab, smash, or hit with) and attack them while they are down. In Jow Ga we are taught that being on the ground is always bad because it takes away our mobility to fight multiple attackers.
> I can tell you this much the only submission grabbling skill that I have would be Chin Na which is just simply joint locks that have the same purpose as MMA joint locks (to destroy the joint).



Would these be the Jow Ga counters to grappling you're talking about;








That's pretty bad. 

Even if its not neglected, unless they're incorporating modern grappling into the process, they're wasting their time.

There was a video of a Wing Chun exponent using modern wrestling methods, and showing how to stop the DLT the proper way. That's how you do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Would these be the Jow Ga counters to grappling you're talking about;


No those aren't the Jow Ga counters to grappling that I'm talking about.  I actually commented about those Jow Ga techniques in your video from another post and said that, I wouldn't use those technique to deal with a shoot.  I understand how he's trying to use those techniques to deal with the striking but none of those are going to address the force or speed that comes with people who know how to shoot.  Those gifs are perfect example of correct technique used for the wrong situation.  I'm sure those guys have anti grappling techniques as well, unless the sifu ripped it out of their forms.

The Jow Ga counters that I'm talking about to defend against someone shooting for the legs or the waist actually requires that we grab the person shooting.  A person shouldn't defend against a shoot with a strike, that's a bad idea 99% of the time.  This is the Jow Ga school where I train.  If you are really interested in seeing some Chinese TMA grappling and grappling defenses then I should have some videos up showing our school in action (non-demo application) against the shoot next week (provided that my Sifu approves of the videos I choose).  Don't expect any fancy stuff like what you showed in the Jow Ga video above.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> No those aren't the Jow Ga counters to grappling that I'm talking about.  I actually commented about those Jow Ga techniques in your video from another post and said that, I wouldn't use those technique to deal with a shoot.  I understand how he's trying to use those techniques to deal with the striking but none of those are going to address the force or speed that comes with people who know how to shoot.  Those gifs are perfect example of correct technique used for the wrong situation.  I'm sure those guys have anti grappling techniques as well, unless the sifu ripped it out of their forms.
> 
> The Jow Ga counters that I'm talking about to defend against someone shooting for the legs or the waist actually requires that we grab the person shooting.  A person shouldn't defend against a shoot with a strike, that's a bad idea 99% of the time.  This is the Jow Ga school where I train.  If you are really interested in seeing some Chinese TMA grappling and grappling defenses then I should have some videos up showing our school in action (non-demo application) against the shoot next week (provided that my Sifu approves of the videos I choose).  Don't expect any fancy stuff like what you showed in the Jow Ga video above.



Thanks for the link.

I noticed this on the website;



> Jow Ga is a well-rounded fighting system that includes grappling anti grappling techniques which is vital in a world of MMA grappling style opponents.



I find it interesting that your school views anti-grappling as so important that they put it on the front page of their website. Why above all other threats out there is the grappling adversary/MMA thug seen as the paramount threat to the Jow Ga practitioner?

Further, if those guys in the video weren't doing grappling counters properly (one guy in the video is a sifu), does that mean that Jow Ga doesn't have standardized curriculum for anti-grappling?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Tell this guy that hand to hand combat is useless



Why would I tell anyone hand to hand combat is useless? 



> What makes me think that empty-hand TCMA was ever used in war? The same reason this guy had to use hand to hand combat.



And what war do you think they were used in? And how would you know they didn't just get people killed because they're bad systems?... 

I highly doubt their effectiveness on a battlefield because the majority of traditional techniques are highly impractical even 1 on 1, at least those that are passed down in China in this day and age. But I have no reason to believe they were ever any more practical, as I've seen evidence of some styles remaining isolated and unchanged for 500+ years. Meaning the impractical garbage they do now is the same as what they did centuries ago.



> That's how they train not how I train.  I dedicated 2 hours every Thursday to actually realistic fighting application. I spar against other fighting styles so that I can learn how to apply my Jow Ga to against different fighting styles.



And what makes you think they ever trained more realistically and faced other styles in training, especially when their systems are full of impractical classical nonsense?



> What you buy is up to you.  I train Jow Ga Kung Fu and I know from experience that it's a legit fighting system.



And what war do you think it was used in? It's not very old, like Ving Tsun, which I think only became a legit fighting system after Yip Man simplified it from the traditional nonsense it once was in the mainland, and still is in many lineages today.



> Show me where I said Taiji was used in a war?



I must have assumed you meant that because you were responding to a post that showed a clip of a Yang Style _Taijiquan_ practitioner and talking about old TCMAs used in war. I realize now the title of the video was only in Chinese and you may not have been able to read it...


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


>





drop bear said:


> Longsword double leg.



Neat illustrations of duelling. 

The only thing missing, if there were on a Chinese battlefield, would be the swarms of other warriors impaling him with their swords.


----------



## Phobius

My thoughts on the matter, not in any way proven but rather from my own reasoning. Ask me for proof wont work and some of my arguments may be very flawed. It is just for discussion.

All systems changes constantly, just because we can not see it looking back some hundred years.

Problem with grappling is that there is no way you can learn to defend against it without actually training against grappler. Either you become one yourself or you find a grappler to train with you. There have been some who think that grappling is not a martial art and as such everyone can do it, others had no idea how to do grappling and had to incorporate BJJ/GJJ to their school.

Problem still remains that their teachers did not train in a hostile chinese environment necessarily and therefore never got a chance to learn proper "anti-takedown" or grappling techniques. Most likely their teachers of that time were also too proud to allow themselves to fight on the ground in order to show their students how it should be done, same as their teachers before them.

As such grappling dies while the techniques remain. Problem is that noone knew how to apply the techniques and that is when everyone starts guessing wildly.

Now grappling today is most likely nowhere near the grappling in the old days which means that all so called "anti-grappling" based on old interpretation of the art are probably off since you no longer can be expected to carry a weapon at all times while going to the ground. Keep in mind that in the old days any trained martial artist would carry a weapon of some kind. Only in videos or if you are very poor would you go around unarmed with a big target sign on your back.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I find it interesting that your school views anti-grappling as so important that they put it on the front page of their website. Why above all other threats out there is the grappling adversary/MMA thug seen as the paramount threat to the Jow Ga practitioner?



Grappling is and has always been a danger to the strike, this isn't anything new. This is why boxers hug each other when they are taking too many strikes to the face.  Strikes become less effective once your opponent is inside your striking range.  The inside on your striking range is usually the distance between your elbow to your shoulder. This is a strikers weak point. Martial artists that don't understand this that will often try to punch an opponent that is shooting, which is completely useless once that person is inside that range.  We don't view MMA as thugs, but we do understand that they are very good at getting into a strikers weak point.  A good martial artist must be humble enough to recognize the dangers and weaknesses so that the correct technique can be used.



Hanzou said:


> Further, if those guys in the video weren't doing grappling counters properly (one guy in the video is a sifu), does that mean that Jow Ga doesn't have standardized curriculum for anti-grappling?


 Even though one of the guys is a Sifu, he still picked the wrong technique to address the shoot. Jow Ga has standardized anti-grappling in the form provided that the Sifu understands it as that and not rip it out of the form.  For example, if a technique to deal with the shoot is made of two parts, but the Sifu fails to understand this and only does one part.  The amount of detail knowledge that a Sifu has of the forms will often determine if they are able to point out the correct technique for dealing with grappling.  Also the Sifu has to understand how the opponent's attack works so that the correct technique can be used.  Most traditional martial artists will raise their stance in reaction to a shoot, this is a natural and untrained reaction.  A tradition martial artist that sinks their stance when someone shoots is familiar with how the shoot works and is able to pick the correct technique to deal with it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Neat illustrations of duelling.
> 
> The only thing missing, if there were on a Chinese battlefield, would be the swarms of other warriors impaling him with their swords.


Not necessarily so. You may not have time to look around to see who needs help because you'll be busy fighting the guy in front of you.   This would also be the case if the soldier wanted to fight away from others. Keep in mind you are fighting with Spears and Swords so swinging your sword too close to your own men may result in you killing him from a large swing.   To put it in simple terms.  If you and I are on the front lines with swords, how close do you think you want to stand next to me when I'm swinging my sword?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Not necessarily so. You may not have time to look around to see who needs help because you'll be busy fighting the guy in front of you.   This would also be the case if the soldier wanted to fight away from others. Keep in mind you are fighting with Spears and Swords so swinging your sword too close to your own men may result in you killing him from a large swing.   To put it in simple terms.  If you and I are on the front lines with swords, how close do you think you want to stand next to me when I'm swinging my sword?



Well, this is all speculation unless you've been on such a battlefield, isn't it?

Some years ago, medieval padded weapon battles were a thing with some people I knew and I participated in a few. Sure, there were no live blades of course, but we acknowledged when we would have "died". There were 500+ on a large open field with spears, long swords, short swords, double swords, flails, shields, and even archers that we had to be aware of. 

Many people also had formal weapon training and were pretty good with it. I duelled a guy who had Japanese sword training with my double swords. But in order to do that we both had to call off our guys. I imagine that wouldn't work in a real armed conflict. If either of us dropped weapons and went to grapple we'd certainly be killed by people running by, as it was a giant group effort. People didn't just stand and fight individual battles 1 on 1. There was a lot of group strategy involved. I can only imagine group mentality would be all the more important if lives were actually on the line, as in ancient bladed battles.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Some years ago, medieval padded weapon battles were a thing with some people I knew and I participated in a few. Sure, there were no live blades of course, but we acknowledged when we would have "died".



So this is where your understanding of weapons use, self-defense, and ancient battlefields come from?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> So this is where your understanding of weapons use, self-defense, and ancient battlefields come from?



Of course not. Don't be stupid.

I'm saying if it's not even "safe" to grapple when playing how the hell could you think it'd be safe on a real battlefield with live blades and actual death?


----------



## JowGaWolf

This is a common anti-grappling technique (specifically at 0:27). The key to it is turning opponent's torso as they are in the process of trying to grab you.  The concept works is sound and it will work if you use the correct technique.  I personally think the technique here is wrong mainly I've used this technique before with a wider stance and it required that one of my arms has to be inside the shoot.  The biggest flaw I see here is the stance. There's no way it could survive the impact of a shoot. The (0:34) mark shows a wider stance but it has to be even wider than that because the attacker is still able to get his arms around both legs. The defender tries to stop the force of the shoot, but in reality you'll be better of going with flow and using the momentum of the shoot to help you execute your the technique.





This is has some good basic anti-grappling concepts (2:52)





This guy is too hyper for me but we have a similar technique in Jow Ga (2:15)  The goal is to prevent the opponent from grabbing your lead leg. I've done this before where my opponent went for my lead leg but my hands weren't used the way he uses it here.  I'm always afraid that my elbows will slip off my opponent so I don't slow the shoot in this manner. It's important to something else after that lead leg is free because your opponent isn't going to just stop trying just because they couldn't get the lead leg.   None of the examples here are a one size fits all solution to shoots.  These work well for a shoot that is coming in with a lot of forward momentum.  There are shoots that start forward and low and then shoot upward. Those require a different technique to defend against.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Neat illustrations of duelling.
> 
> The only thing missing, if there were on a Chinese battlefield, would be the swarms of other warriors impaling him with their swords.



If other people were in a position to impale you with swords they are just going to do it. Not wait until you are grappling.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> If other people were in a position to impale you with swords they are just going to do it. Not wait until you are grappling.



Records of Vikings wrestling on the battlefield.

Hurstwic: Viking Swords


----------



## Phobius

Even medieval reenactment or fighting can be brutal. Once you end up in a bad situation the risk increases that people want to do grappling despite weapons just to bring you down.






Sorry btw, was not really interested or followed this last bit of discussion but saw the medieval "joke" of a fight and just had to share this video since it depicts a slightly more hurtful fight.

(Know a friend that has participated in these events and she is a really tough woman but still says each fight hurts like hell and comes home with bruises and sometimes worse to a degree that doctors would think in terms of severe domestic violence.)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> Even medieval reenactment or fighting can be brutal. Once you end up in a bad situation the risk increases that people want to do grappling despite weapons just to bring you down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry btw, was not really interested or followed this last bit of discussion but saw the medieval "joke" of a fight and just had to share this video since it depicts a slightly more hurtful fight.
> 
> (Know a friend that has participated in these events and she is a really tough woman but still says each fight hurts like hell and comes home with bruises and sometimes worse to a degree that doctors would think in terms of severe domestic violence.)


  Search youtube for longsword fighting

Here's one that has grappling techniques


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Grappling is and has always been a danger to the strike, this isn't anything new. This is why boxers hug each other when they are taking too many strikes to the face.  Strikes become less effective once your opponent is inside your striking range.  The inside on your striking range is usually the distance between your elbow to your shoulder. This is a strikers weak point. Martial artists that don't understand this that will often try to punch an opponent that is shooting, which is completely useless once that person is inside that range.  We don't view MMA as thugs, but we do understand that they are very good at getting into a strikers weak point.  A good martial artist must be humble enough to recognize the dangers and weaknesses so that the correct technique can be used.



While I understand the argument, the way its presented on the website is that the grappler is the most dangerous and likely scenario you're going to run into in a self defense situation, and that they have a solution to that problem. It just reeks like that claim by the Wing Tsun exponent that his anti-grappling can stop "advanced grapplers" from smearing your face into the concrete.



> Even though one of the guys is a Sifu, he still picked the wrong technique to address the shoot. Jow Ga has standardized anti-grappling in the form provided that the Sifu understands it as that and not rip it out of the form.  For example, if a technique to deal with the shoot is made of two parts, but the Sifu fails to understand this and only does one part.  The amount of detail knowledge that a Sifu has of the forms will often determine if they are able to point out the correct technique for dealing with grappling.  Also the Sifu has to understand how the opponent's attack works so that the correct technique can be used.  Most traditional martial artists will raise their stance in reaction to a shoot, this is a natural and untrained reaction.  A tradition martial artist that sinks their stance when someone shoots is familiar with how the shoot works and is able to pick the correct technique to deal with it.



Well do you understand how the shoot works? Those videos you posted in a later post both showed the DLT done incorrectly (and frankly, as a former MMA fighter Shawn Obasi should know better). If that's how you guys are training to stop that takedown, then you're going to be in a lot of trouble when the time comes to defend against a proper one.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> understand how the shoot works...


Most wrestlers use the following method to deal with leg shooting.

- put both hands in front of your both knees. Your hands are in front of your knees. Before your opponent's hands can reach to your legs, his hands has to pass your hands first. This will work if striking is not concerned.
- when your opponent shoots, you "under hook" his shoulders and stop his forward movement.

This will work but IMO, this is too "conservative" approach. You just want to "stop" your opponent's shooting.

Another approach is:

- when your opponent shoots,
- you use one arm to "over hook" one of his shoulder,
- spin the leading leg back,
- lift one of his legs, and
- take him down.

This approach will require good timing and fast footwork. But it's more "aggressive" approach. You want to "take advantage on" your opponent's shooting.

The 3rd approach can be as simple as:

- pull your leading leg back,
- put both hands behind your opponent's neck,
- borrow his forward force,
- lead him into the emptiness, and
- let him to kiss the dirt.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> While I understand the argument, the way its presented on the website is that the grappler is the most dangerous and likely scenario you're going to run into in a self defense situation, and that they have a solution to that problem. It just reeks like that claim by the Wing Tsun exponent that his anti-grappling can stop "advanced grapplers" from smearing your face into the concrete.


1. Most (not all) Chinese Martial Art schools neglect grappling.  If someone is looking for a kung fu school that addresses grappling then, yes we do have a solution, and better yet it's a working solution.

2. The site says "*Jow Ga is a well-rounded fighting system that includes* *grappling anti grappling techniques which is vital in a world of MMA grappling style opponents*." Jow Ga does include grappling and anti-grappling techniques.   Knowledge of Grappling and anti-grappling techniques is a must if you are going to someone who knows how to Grapple and Shoot.  Grappling is a vital part of the MMA world.  Which of those statements in #1 or #2  above are wrong?



Hanzou said:


> Well do you understand how the shoot works? Those videos you posted in a later post both showed the DLT done incorrectly (and frankly, as a former MMA fighter Shawn Obasi should know better). If that's how you guys are training to stop that takedown, then you're going to be in a lot of trouble when the time comes to defend against a proper one.


1. Yes I understand how the shoot works. It's just that I'm not going to go into details about the specifics of those techniques. If I say that we have a similar technique to defending against the shoot it doesn't mean that it's the same.  It just means that there are some similar elements. If it doesn't sound like I know how to defend against the shoot then there's nothing that I can do about that.  Me proving that I can defend against the shoot won't have any benefit to anyone here. Just as people not believing me won't have any negative affect.  The only person that I ever prove my abilities against the shoot is the person who is shooting on me and I have been successful in doing so during my sparring with other fighting styles.  People choose to believe or not to believe me.  Either is fine.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. Most (not all) Chinese Martial Art schools neglect grappling.  If someone is looking for a kung fu school that addresses grappling then, yes we do have a solution, and better yet it's a working solution.
> 
> 2. The site says "*Jow Ga is a well-rounded fighting system that includes* *grappling anti grappling techniques which is vital in a world of MMA grappling style opponents*." Jow Ga does include grappling and anti-grappling techniques.   Knowledge of Grappling and anti-grappling techniques is a must if you are going to someone who knows how to Grapple and Shoot.  Grappling is a vital part of the MMA world.  Which of those statements in #1 or #2  above are wrong?



Since I have yet to see any of these Jow Ga grappling/anti-grappling techniques, I'll just ask; Are they native to Jow Ga, or were they picked up from modern/western/MMA grappling?




> 1. Yes I understand how the shoot works. It's just that I'm not going to go into details about the specifics of those techniques. If I say that we have a similar technique to defending against the shoot it doesn't mean that it's the same.  It just means that there are some similar elements. If it doesn't sound like I know how to defend against the shoot then there's nothing that I can do about that.  Me proving that I can defend against the shoot won't have any benefit to anyone here. Just as people not believing me won't have any negative affect.  The only person that I ever prove my abilities against the shoot is the person who is shooting on me and I have been successful in doing so during my sparring with other fighting styles.  People choose to believe or not to believe me.  Either is fine.



If you know how the DLT works, why are you posting vids of people doing it improperly and saying that those are good examples of defenses against that technique? 

If you go to youtube and look up Double Leg Takedown tutorials you'll see the difference. It's like night and day.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most wrestlers use the following method to deal with leg shooting.
> 
> - put both hands in front of your both knees. Your hands are in front of your knees. Before your opponent's hands can reach to your legs, his hands has to pass your hands first. This will work if striking is not concerned.
> - when your opponent shoots, you "under hook" his shoulders and stop his forward movement.
> 
> This will work but IMO, this is too "conservative" approach. You just want to "stop" your opponent's shooting.
> 
> Another approach is:
> 
> - when your opponent shoots,
> - you use one arm to "over hook" one of his shoulder,
> - spin the leading leg back,
> - lift one of his legs, and
> - take him down.
> 
> This approach will require good timing and fast footwork. But it's more "aggressive" approach. You want to "take advantage on" your opponent's shooting.
> 
> The 3rd approach can be as simple as:
> 
> - pull your leading leg back,
> - put both hands behind your opponent's neck,
> - borrow his forward force,
> - lead him into the emptiness, and
> - let him to kiss the dirt.



My issue is mainly with the vids that Jow posted. There's definitely counters to someone shooting into you, but someone bending over and coming at you with their arms stretched out while they're looking at the floor is not a good way to practice DLT counters.

But yeah, if you want to stop that takedown, talk to wrestlers. They're the masters of doing it, and stopping it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> My issue is mainly with the vids that Jow posted.


I just tried to point out that "striking" is not a proper counter for "leg shooting". Even if your strike may hit on your opponent, his forward momentum will still push you back and take you down.

Again, the best test is still:

- get a wrestler,
- ask him to shoot at your leg,
- you try to use your punch to stop him.

Test this for 100 rounds and draw your own conclusion.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> If other people were in a position to impale you with swords they are just going to do it. Not wait until you are grappling.



Exactly, and if you were in a group battle you would be more vigilant to the threats around you, in addition to that directly before you. All the more reason you would not be tangling up with one guy.

All examples shown of grappling with weapons have been in duels, for a reason.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Exactly, and if you were in a group battle you would be more vigilant to the threats around you, in addition to that directly before you. All the more reason you would not be tangling up with one guy.
> 
> All examples shown of grappling with weapons have been in duels, for a reason.



Were the Viking examples duels? 

There is no point getting stabbed if going to the ground gets you unstabbed. I mean we are working a time factor here if you are farting around in a group fight trying to get one guy then you are not teaming up with your mates getting the next guy and increasing your odds.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If you know how the DLT works, why are you posting vids of people doing it improperly and saying that those are good examples of defenses against that technique?



I pick those videos because they are addressing the shoot and not the take down.  No where in my post did I say these are techniques for dealing with a Double Leg Takedown.  Takedowns are made of 2 main parts.  The first part is the shoot.  The second part is the actual takedown.  The shoot is the technique that's get you in range to perform the takedown.  A successful shoot will give you the opportunity to do numerous takedowns, no of which has to be a double leg take down.  A person can do a shoot for a single leg take down, an ankle lock, or even a slam, just to name a few.  

This is what it looks like in wrestling when addressing the shoot.  This method of addressing the shoot cannot be used exactly the same way for fighting systems that involve someone hitting or kicking at you.  You'll also notice (mark 1:37) he speaks about using his forearms to address the shoot.  This is what you see in the previous video with the guy wearing the gi (mark 3:14), using his forearms to address the shoot.





Once someone has you wrapped up for double leg take down then you have to address the takedown because the shoot was successful.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just tried to point out that "striking" is not a proper counter for "leg shooting". Even if your strike may hit on your opponent, his forward momentum will still push you back and take you down


  Exactly.  No matter how good it looks in a demo, that someone can strike the head to stop a shoot, it is highly risky, and there's no guarantee that a person will be in a position to execute a strike with enough power to be effective. Shoots are fast and sneaky and the quickest response is to move the legs while restricting movement on the shoot.  That's 2 things happening at once as a defender.  If a person is only trying to strike at the shoot then no effort is being made to restrict the movement of the shoot.  This is why we are always kung fu people fail when trying to strike a shoot.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Again, the best test is still:
> - get a wrestler,
> - ask him to shoot at your leg,
> - you try to use your punch to stop him


  I would even go a step further and ask the wrestler about the concept and goal of the shoot.  Once a person understands an attack then they are more likely to use the appropriate technique to defend against it, even if it's a kung fu based grappling technique.  My school does exactly this and we do it with the mindset of better understanding our own fighting style and techniques. Our goal is to understand how to correctly apply our kung fu grappling techniques to deal with the shoot.


----------



## drop bear

I have looked at english and viking war culture and so far people still think wrestling is not a war art.so.

Mongolian wrestling.





Bokh - the Mongolian Martial Art - Historum - History Forums


----------



## drop bear

Mongolian girl wrestling.

Actually this link is pretty cool.

Khutulun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Were the Viking examples duels?



The video showed and the text described 1 on 1, not group battles.



> There is no point getting stabbed if going to the ground gets you unstabbed.



Going to the ground in 1 on 1 that might be. It gets you stabbed / chopped / smashed for sure in the middle of a group battle.



> I mean we are working a time factor here if you are farting around in a group fight trying to get one guy then you are not teaming up with your mates getting the next guy and increasing your odds.



Exactly why there is no duelling or ground fighting in a group battle... You will certainly be killed. It's not that difficult to understand.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Since I have yet to see any of these Jow Ga grappling/anti-grappling techniques, I'll just ask; Are they native to Jow Ga, or were they picked up from modern/western/MMA grappling?


  Some of the Jow Ga grappling /anti-grappling techniques are kung fu based and others are universal across many fighting styles including modern day grappling. Non of our anti-grappling techniques consist of striking as a way to control grabbling or escaping from grappling.  The entire benefit of grappling is that it neutralizes the strikes or makes the strikes less effective.

I don't like martial art videos or instructors that address the shoot and ant-grappling in this manner.  





or videos like this. Jow Ga uses uppercuts and no where in the "Jow Ga Manual" does it say use an uppercut to stop someone that's shooting on you and trying to grab you low.  Neither one of the videos addresses the importance of the height of a stance which is also vital.  The other thing is that they are always performed in with slow movement. Videos like these tell me that either the instructor doesn't understand the shoot, or isn't interpreting their technique correctly.  For example, an uppercut may be a follow up after a successful shoot defense, but it isn't actually part of the defense to deal with someone shooting on you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The following oldest picture was found in China back in 280 BC. You can see the way those Chinese wrestlers dressed look exactly like the Japanese Sumo wrestler that we have today (Some Japanese still don't want to admit that Japanese Sumo may come from China). 2 guys on the right were doing wrestling. 1 guy on the left was the referee. It was done on a stage with ribbon.

The interested part is, the middle guy used his hands to push his opponent's arm up before he intend to "shoot". This is a very important strategy. If you push your opponent arms up, when you shoot at his leg/legs, his arms won't give you any trouble. This can further prove that trying to use punch to hit on your opponent's head while he shoots in is not practically.


----------



## Tez3

The Mongols used wrestling as training and as an occupation/amusement to keep the troops busy, they didn't use it 'on the battlefield', very difficult to do that as they were mounted...unless one taught the horses to grapple.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I pick those videos because they are addressing the shoot and not the take down.  No where in my post did I say these are techniques for dealing with a Double Leg Takedown.  Takedowns are made of 2 main parts.  The first part is the shoot.  The second part is the actual takedown.  The shoot is the technique that's get you in range to perform the takedown.  A successful shoot will give you the opportunity to do numerous takedowns, no of which has to be a double leg take down.  A person can do a shoot for a single leg take down, an ankle lock, or even a slam, just to name a few.



Again, its the shooting part that is done incorrectly which consequently means the entire technique is done incorrectly.  It's laughable to say that you've built a strong technique to counter the takedown when you're not training against the actual takedown.

It's just like that Stephen Hayes vid I posted. There's no point in training to fight against the Guard when you don't understand the Guard position in the first place.



> This is what it looks like in wrestling when addressing the shoot.  This method of addressing the shoot cannot be used exactly the same way for fighting systems that involve someone hitting or kicking at you.  You'll also notice (mark 1:37) he speaks about using his forearms to address the shoot.  This is what you see in the previous video with the guy wearing the gi (mark 3:14), using his forearms to address the shoot.



But again, that technique wasn't done correctly, so using that as a sound method against the DLT is nonsense. Also while you certainly wouldn't use your head to stop the DLT in a striking situation, the principles found in wrestling still apply to a counter within a striking environment. MMA for example uses wrestling and Jiujitsu to counter the DLT, and there's plenty of strikes to be found in that sport.



> Once someone has you wrapped up for double leg take down then you have to address the takedown because the shoot was successful.



I personally like this;





It's a great (late) counter to the DLT.



JowGaWolf said:


> Some of the Jow Ga grappling /anti-grappling techniques are kung fu based and others are universal across many fighting styles including modern day grappling. Non of our anti-grappling techniques consist of striking as a way to control grabbling or escaping from grappling.  The entire benefit of grappling is that it neutralizes the strikes or makes the strikes less effective.



Well since you're not showing any counters from Jow Ga, could you please show these Kung Fu based/Universal counters to the DLT? Again, there's a difference between how the DLT was countered when your style was formulated and how the DLT is countered in modern MA. The technique has changed dramatically since the early 20th century, and is still being refined and perfected. Thus, your art's counters are more than likely as outdated/incorrect as those you showed in the earlier videos.

And remember, this is still the only example of Jow Ga DLT counter that we've seen thus far, which frankly fits in with your standard Kung Fu based counters to grappling techniques;










Horrific.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> The Mongols used wrestling as training and as an occupation/amusement to keep the troops busy, they didn't use it 'on the battlefield', very difficult to do that as they were mounted...unless one taught the horses to grapple.



The article said they did. And the horses are bloody tiny. You could wrestle a guy off one.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> The Mongols used wrestling as training and as an occupation/amusement to keep the troops busy, they didn't use it 'on the battlefield', very difficult to do that as they were mounted...unless one taught the horses to grapple.



The article said they did. And the horses are bloody tiny. You could wrestle a guy off one.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The video showed and the text described 1 on 1, not group battles.
> 
> 
> 
> Going to the ground in 1 on 1 that might be. It gets you stabbed / chopped / smashed for sure in the middle of a group battle.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why there is no duelling or ground fighting in a group battle... You will certainly be killed. It's not that difficult to understand.



. Three different cultures all wrestle in war. With evidence to back it up and you have responded with just this unfounded idea.

Where do you get this information from?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Again, its the shooting part that is done incorrectly which consequently means the entire technique is done incorrectly.  It's laughable to say that you've built a strong technique to counter the takedown when you're not training against the actual takedown.
> 
> It's just like that Stephen Hayes vid I posted. There's no point in training to fight against the Guard when you don't understand the Guard position in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, that technique wasn't done correctly, so using that as a sound method against the DLT is nonsense. Also while you certainly wouldn't use your head to stop the DLT in a striking situation, the principles found in wrestling still apply to a counter within a striking environment. MMA for example uses wrestling and Jiujitsu to counter the DLT, and there's plenty of strikes to be found in that sport.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c.



I don't know if rolling makes a difference but normally we don't defend double overlooks because you can step out to defend it.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> . Three different cultures all wrestle in war. With evidence to back it up and you have responded with just this unfounded idea.
> 
> Where do you get this information from?



Everything you have posted thus far has referred only to 1 on 1, not in the midst of hundreds of armed warriors.

And what exactly are you calling evidence? Stories, legends? Then you must also believe there is evidence to support them having fought dragons.

I get this information from common sense.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> . Three different cultures all wrestle in war. With evidence to back it up and you have responded with just this unfounded idea.
> 
> Where do you get this information from?




LOL, you disagree so it's unfounded, really, look up any history site.

. I take it you don't know much about horses and riding if you think you can wrestle riders off that easily. In the west horses have been trained as 'warhorses' attacking on command. If you watch a dressage event or the Spanish Riding School you will see the movements they were trained in. The Mongols were and still are extremely skilled horsemen, you should never judge a horse by it's size, the bigger they are the more placid, those 'little' horse are fierce and would eat you given a chance.



drop bear said:


> we don't defend double overlooks because you can step out to defend it



I don't defend double overlooks either, just fling them a scowl and flounce away.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> LOL, you disagree so it's unfounded, really, look up any history site.



I have looked up three so far and posted them and quite simply nobody else has which is what I ment by unfounded.

As in unfounded.

So unfounded


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> . I take it you don't know much about horses and riding if you think you can wrestle riders off that easily. In the west horses have been trained as 'warhorses' attacking on command. If you watch a dressage event or the Spanish Riding School you will see the movements they were trained in. The Mongols were and still are extremely skilled horsemen, you should never judge a horse by it's size, the bigger they are the more placid, those 'little' horse are fierce and would eat you given a chance.



I have seen rodeo clowns wrestle riders off bulls which are bigger and arguably more violent.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> I have seen rodeo clowns wrestle riders off bulls which are bigger and arguably more violent.




If I had a giraffe you would have the box to put it in.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Everything you have posted thus far has referred only to 1 on 1, not in the midst of hundreds of armed warriors.



Have you seen _Capitan Alatriste?_ OK it's only a movie, but historically, better than average...

Check out what's going on in the pike battle from about 3:00 to 4:00. You will see soldiers crawling under the pikes and fighting on their hands and knees.I don't know if you'd call it _grappling_ or not. It's certainly ground-fighting though.  You can find similar instances happening in battles from other periods, such as in WWI trench warfare.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> If I had a giraffe you would have the box to put it in.



They are custom built.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Again, its the shooting part that is done incorrectly which consequently means the entire technique is done incorrectly. It's laughable to say that you've built a strong technique to counter the takedown when you're not training against the actual takedown.


 I'm the one laughable?  You are the one trying to tell me about the fighting system I train in, and the effectiveness of its grappling and anti-grappling techniques. None of which do you know, practice, or seen put to work against people who grapple.  But I guess you have trained under the same lineage as I have so that's why you know more about Jow Ga grappling and ant-grappling techniques more than me.



Hanzou said:


> Well since you're not showing any counters from Jow Ga, could you please show these Kung Fu based/Universal counters to the DLT?


#1 I'm pretty sure I put out a link and said to check that link this weekend because there will be videos of Jow Ga in action some of which show use dealing with the shoot.
#2 I don't know why you are so concerned with the double leg take down.  You act as if a double leg take down is the only thing someone can do after they shoot.  The technique of shooting isn't the same as the technique of a double leg take down.  Just because someone shoots on you doesn't mean that they are going to do a double leg take down.



Hanzou said:


> And remember, this is still the only example of Jow Ga DLT counter that we've seen thus far, which frankly fits in with your standard Kung Fu based counters to grappling techniques


 And like I said before this is not a Jow Ga technique for countering a shoot.  He is using the wrong Jow Ga technique for addressing the shoot.  Even though you I keep telling you this you keep insisting that is the Jow Ga technique for countering a shoot. He is not of the same lineage of Jow Ga that I'm from so I can't even tell you what their sifu focuses on in terms of Jow Ga.  I looked up his sifu (Sigung Andry Truong) and his him doing the forms.  There technique at (Mark 1:54) is the technique that is used for defending against the shoot. That's the one that should have been used.  If you don't see the technique or understand how it could work then that's because you don't train in Jow Ga.  You can either believe what I say or you can continue to tell me about about a technique you have never used.





This is the last response that I'll make to you in reference to grappling. You can only make assumptions based off someone using the wrong Jow Ga technique on a attempted shoot and just assume that Jow Ga uses that as a standard defense against a grapple.  Then when someone who takes Jow Ga and trains against the shoot tries to tell you differently you (the person who doesn't take Jow Ga or train in my school) insist on telling me that what I do is "laughable."  

The difference between you and someone who actually wants to understand how something works, is that the person who wants to understand listens and asks questions about how it works.  You picked a Jow Ga video that you found on you tube and not once did you ask me is that the grappling technique that is taught.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I don't know if rolling makes a difference but normally we don't defend double overlooks because you can step out to defend it.


  Rolling wouldn't be a defense to the shoot for many kung fu styles because it prevents the use of effecting striking. For example, that roll prevents the person from throwing an uppercut to the face or an elbow strike to the head.  If a person wanted to avoid the shoot with the purpose of striking the face with a fist, knee, or elbow after successfully defending the shoot, then that roll isn't going to be best defense to use to position yourself to follow up with those attacks.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Rolling wouldn't be a defense to the shoot for many kung fu styles because it prevents the use of effecting striking. For example, that roll prevents the person from throwing an uppercut to the face or an elbow strike to the head.  If a person wanted to avoid the shoot with the purpose of striking the face with a fist, knee, or elbow after successfully defending the shoot, then that roll isn't going to be best defense to use to position yourself to follow up with those attacks.



The overhooks (thank you spell checker) would be a late phase counter. So you are already past the point where you could have hit them.

Cross face overhook sprawl. Is the best basic method. And you can strike from there if the opportunity presents.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Have you seen _Capitan Alatriste?_ OK it's only a movie, but historically, better than average...
> 
> Check out what's going on in the pike battle from about 3:00 to 4:00. You will see soldiers crawling under the pikes and fighting on their hands and knees.I don't know if you'd call it _grappling_ or not. It's certainly ground-fighting though.  You can find similar instances happening in battles from other periods, such as in WWI trench warfare.



This makes sense to me from a fighting perspective.  If the enemy grabs your pike and holds tightly to it then you are no longer able to use that pike to stab someone else. This would allow other soldiers to advance through the pike.   Pikes, staffs, and spears are long range fighting weapons. They lose their advantage when a person attacks inside their fighting range. You can think of it as shooting underneath a long range weapon.
This is a long sword competion.  Noctice what happens at (0:59)


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The overhooks (thank you spell checker) would be a late phase counter. So you are already past the point where you could have hit them.


  exactly


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm the one laughable?  You are the one trying to tell me about the fighting system I train in, and the effectiveness of its grappling and anti-grappling techniques. None of which do you know, practice, or seen put to work against people who grapple.  But I guess you have trained under the same lineage as I have so that's why you know more about Jow Ga grappling and ant-grappling techniques more than me.



What I've seen are Jow Ga practitioners performing anti-grappling. You say that somehow you're particular version of Jow Ga is different, and that school is performing anti-grappling "wrong", yet you provide no evidence to support any of your statements. So on one side I have evidence, and the other side I have no evidence. What am I supposed to believe? Am I supposed to believe that Jow Ga (like so many TMA styles) have poor anti-grappling, and use evidence from an actual Jow Ga school to support that claim? Conversely, am I supposed to believe that somehow your particular style has somehow "cracked the code" of grappling, and that you're some sort of expert at stopping takedowns?

One is far more likely than the other.




> There technique at (Mark 1:54) is the technique that is used for defending against the shoot. That's the one that should have been used.  If you don't see the technique or understand how it could work then that's because you don't train in Jow Ga.  You can either believe what I say or you can continue to tell me about about a technique you have never used.



Ah, so you're pulling your anti-grappling from a form?









> This is the last response that I'll make to you in reference to grappling.



Don't worry, we're done here.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Conversely, am I supposed to believe that somehow your particular style has somehow "cracked the code" of grappling, and that you're some sort of expert at stopping takedowns?
> 
> One is far more likely than the other.



Grappling is older than many other types of fighting, so to believe that the solution to grappling has existed in most of them for a very long time is not far fetched. Stating otherwise would be same as someone stating that no grappler would have the solution to punching. After all noone knew how to punch back in the days when everyone knew how to do grappling. *Ironic*

We are all so eager to believe that we and we alone hold some secret techniques that noone else knows about but in all honesty there are only so many good ways to handle a situation. And people have throughout the ages explored all different possibilities of killing one another.



Hanzou said:


> Ah, so you're pulling your anti-grappling from a form?



This statement is kind of rude. In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed. It is like a way to help remember your style and not forget some parts after several years of training. My opinion of form but still... Kung Fu form is not kata, kata is not a form.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Grappling is older than many other types of fighting, so to believe that the solution to grappling has existed in most of them for a very long time is not far fetched. Stating otherwise would be same as someone stating that no grappler would have the solution to punching. After all noone knew how to punch back in the days when everyone knew how to do grappling. *Ironic*



Except grappling has evolved over time, and is continuing to evolve at a very rapid pace thanks to the sharing of knowledge from various grappling disciplines and the rise of grappling sports and MMA. So  while a Chinese martial artist may have figured out how to stop a grappler from his area of China hundreds of years ago, you can't say that his solution to grappling can magically apply to the modern state of grappling in MMA and Bjj.



> We are all so eager to believe that we and we alone hold some secret techniques that noone else knows about but in all honesty there are only so many good ways to handle a situation. And people have throughout the ages explored all different possibilities of killing one another.



If that were the case, you wouldn't have this thread, where Wing Tsun exponents come up with nonsensical ways to stop grappling. Their techniques against grappling would be sound, since grappling has always existed, and surely a WT (or Jow Ga) master would have discovered a solution to dealing with them. The reality is that grappling has evolved far beyond what ancient martial artists in China or other areas encountered, which is why they have to come up with modern solutions in dealing with it. You're not going to find the solution of stopping a modern takedown in a hundred year old Kung Fu form. If you try, you're going to end up like that Tai Chi guy who got smashed by the BJJ white belt in the vid I posted earlier.



> This statement is kind of rude. In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed. It is like a way to help remember your style and not forget some parts after several years of training. My opinion of form but still... Kung Fu form is not kata, kata is not a form.



See above. The idea that centuries-old Kung Fu or Karate forms somehow have the knowledge necessary in dealing with constantly evolving and adapting styles is pure fantasy. Again, we see the folly of this idea with the origin of this thread; Wing Tsun anti-grappling, and we saw it again with that horrible display of Jow Ga anti-grappling I posted later.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> See above. The idea that centuries-old Kung Fu or Karate forms somehow have the knowledge necessary in dealing with constantly evolving and adapting styles is pure fantasy. Again, we see the folly of this idea with the origin of this thread; Wing Tsun anti-grappling, and we saw it again with that horrible display of Jow Ga anti-grappling I posted later.



My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.

Problem is that teachers and students alike fail to understand that they need to know how to do a proper takedown before they can train how to avoid such a takedown. Otherwise they can pick randomly anything from a form and use that to their advantage. Given the amount of movements in a form, the amount of ways to apply such movement, mixed with the amount of different footwork available. There are a million different possible theories of how to solve grappling problematic. Only one or two might be the correct ones. You will not find those using theory but through live practise.

Since most fail doing proper training their technique does not hold to pressure and when added to YouTube people may complain wildly about it.

Not saying all styles have perfect or even good solution, but they do have some solution. The rest is up to amount of training.

Also grappling is not the magical pill either, the neck is one of those spots in my opinion that feels very bare in many such scenarios. Might not stop a grappler but if it would, the risk involved in being hit badly would still make me try to protect that area with my life at stake.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed.


 This is exactly the correct explanation of a form.


----------



## Tez3

JowGaWolf said:


> This is exactly the correct explanation of a form.



I don't think it will matter how many times you explain your style, minds are made up that it will never be as good as BJJ. Any mention of forms/kata/patterns etc receive scornful comments because in those minds they are useless. I think you'll just have to take satisfaction that you know what you are talking about, it's sad that some feel the need to style bash. I know nothing about your style but genuinely interested martial artists with open minds are always willing to listen to others so you can be sure that there's others who don't agree with the now constant disrespecting attitudes you are encountering.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.



While it isn't rocket science, it is a science. That means that it requires science, not faith and old wive's tales, to counter it.



> Problem is that teachers and students alike fail to understand that they need to know how to do a proper takedown before they can train how to avoid such a takedown. Otherwise they can pick randomly anything from a form and use that to their advantage. Given the amount of movements in a form, the amount of ways to apply such movement, mixed with the amount of different footwork available. There are a million different possible theories of how to solve grappling problematic. Only one or two might be the correct ones. You will not find those using theory but through live practise.



Again, if that were the case, we'd be seeing examples of successful grappling counters coming from those sources. We don't see that. Instead we see that hideous Jow Ga display that I posted earlier, or that Wing Tsun anti-grappling nonsense in the beginning of the thread.

The ones who are serious about neutralizing modern grappling actually learn modern grappling. 



> Since most fail doing proper training their technique does not hold to pressure and when added to YouTube people may complain wildly about it.



Its not about bad technique. It's about using outdated concepts in a modern application. Its like going into a gunfight with a musket when everyone else is using an AK-47. You'll probably do some damage, but 9 times out of 10 you're completely doomed.



> Also grappling is not the magical pill either, the neck is one of those spots in my opinion that feels very bare in many such scenarios. Might not stop a grappler but if it would, the risk involved in being hit badly would still make me try to protect that area with my life at stake.



No one is saying that grappling is invincible. MMA guys from striking styles counter MMA guys from grappling styles all the time. However, they do that by learning grappling and countering it completely in order to give their striking a better chance to succeed. Again, if we were to believe that forms had that secret locked in them, no one would waste time learning grappling, they would simply study forms endlessly to come up with solutions. The fact that no one does that, and the fact that there's no pure Kung Fu guys in MMA or anywhere else breaking grapplers apart with ancient forms, kind of proves my point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> I don't think it will matter how many times you explain your style, minds are made up that it will never be as good as BJJ. Any mention of forms/kata/patterns etc receive scornful comments because in those minds they are useless. I think you'll just have to take satisfaction that you know what you are talking about, it's sad that some feel the need to style bash. I know nothing about your style but genuinely interested martial artists with open minds are always willing to listen to others so you can be sure that there's others who don't agree with the now constant disrespecting attitudes you are encountering.


You are right.  Sadly enough it's a missed opportunity where some learning and constructive discussion could have been started on the various ways there are to defend against the shoot.  We could have discovered what works, which techniques are more risky, and things that people should be aware of when defending against grappling in general.  People could have shared their personal experience and lessons learned when dealing with the shoot.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are right.  Sadly enough it's a missed opportunity where some learning and constructive discussion could have been started on the various ways there are to defend against the shoot.  We could have discovered what works, which techniques are more risky, and things that people should be aware of when defending against grappling in general.  People could have shared their personal experience and lessons learned when dealing with the shoot.



Except we already know how to defend against the shoot. We already know what works, and which techniques are more risky.

The only thing we learn from CMA "anti-grappling" is that it's the opposite of how to properly defend against grappling.


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> The ones who are serious about neutralizing modern grappling actually learn modern grappling.


Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.

So, Sat. I was doing standing clinch work with a college level wrestler. We were working a standard switch. I forgot what they call it. Basically from a clinch there right arm snakes over my right bicep locking my shoulder. Then from there you can take down or transition into other stuff. So in the transition I felt his forward energy go away. So I was able to stop the "technique" with my "chi sao" forward energy and, then I was able to rear naked choke from that position. Did I ever learn that sequence of "techniques" or "counters"? Nope! I did learn how to properly sink a choke in. But I can do that choke many different ways. It was demonstrated to me in one specific scenario . But I was smart enough to realize what I was being shown was and "idea" not a "technique".


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.



If you're training with grapplers, and are learning their tactics and mechanics, you are learning modern grappling.


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> If you're training with grapplers, and are learning their tactics and mechanics, you are learning modern grappling.


Oh, ok thanks.


----------



## Jake104

Sometimes I hang out with friends who do computer programming, and engineering. Hopefully I am learning those things too? 

It's not what you know, it's who you know. Awesome!


----------



## drop bear

Jake104 said:


> Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.
> 
> So, Sat. I was doing standing clinch work with a college level wrestler. We were working a standard switch. I forgot what they call it. Basically from a clinch there right arm snakes over my right bicep locking my shoulder. Then from there you can take down or transition into other stuff. So in the transition I felt his forward energy go away. So I was able to stop the "technique" with my "chi sao" forward energy and, then I was able to rear naked choke from that position. Did I ever learn that sequence of "techniques" or "counters"? Nope! I did learn how to properly sink a choke in. But I can do that choke many different ways. It was demonstrated to me in one specific scenario . But I was smart enough to realize what I was being shown was and "idea" not a "technique".



Yeah this is where it gets tricky. You are going to have overlaps and many of them will be valid but then some of the concepts get thrown out the window due to evidence based training as well.

So you have what works. What feels right and what is part of your accepted principles of fighting. And they are not always the same thing.

This will also change depending on the fighter. 

So what you are describing there is in part your individual game as much as a stylistic difference.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Again, if we were to believe that forms had that secret locked in them, no one would waste time learning grappling, they would simply study forms endlessly to come up with solutions.



So to learn a language you just sit down and study a dictionary (not a translated one at that, after all that is where the training and self experience comes in) until the end of time?

Studying a form would be like reading the words of another language to yourself over and over. Trying to use a technique from a form would be like picking a word and guessing what it means before putting it in a sentence. Without grammar or even a slight hint of its actual meaning the likelyhood of it being the correct word would be very slim to none.

That is what training is for. You should have known this being a martial artist yourself.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.




We have a much larger sample to work with these days though.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> So to learn a language you just sit down and study a dictionary (not a translated one at that, after all that is where the training and self experience comes in) until the end of time?
> 
> Studying a form would be like reading the words of another language to yourself over and over. Trying to use a technique from a form would be like picking a word and guessing what it means before putting it in a sentence. Without grammar or even a slight hint of its actual meaning the likelyhood of it being the correct word would be very slim to none.
> 
> That is what training is for. You should have known this being a martial artist yourself.



Dictionary's evolve.


----------



## Tez3

I'm not sure how one can criticise a martial art one doesn't know or train in. it seems to me that if it's not BJJ the style/art is considered to be rubbish. It's simply a case really of 'my style is best yours is old fashioned and rubbish' with these guys.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> So to learn a language you just sit down and study a dictionary (not a translated one at that, after all that is where the training and self experience comes in) until the end of time?
> 
> Studying a form would be like reading the words of another language to yourself over and over. Trying to use a technique from a form would be like picking a word and guessing what it means before putting it in a sentence. Without grammar or even a slight hint of its actual meaning the likelyhood of it being the correct word would be very slim to none.
> 
> That is what training is for. You should have known this being a martial artist yourself.



As Drop Bear pointed out, language, and consequently dictionaries evolve and adapt over time. If you holed yourself up in a room and just studied colonial American English, and then started trying to communicate with people in modern America, people wouldn't know what you're talking about. The American language has changed significantly over the last 300+ years. Heck, it's changed significantly in the last 100 years. We've added new words, while many words have fallen out of use.

So studying a form is like learning a language from decades or even centuries ago. The problem arises when you attempt to use that language against a modern language that evolves rapidly in a changing environment.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how one can criticise a martial art one doesn't know or train in. it seems to me that if it's not BJJ the style/art is considered to be rubbish. It's simply a case really of 'my style is best yours is old fashioned and rubbish' with these guys.



I'm pretty sure that wrestling, sambo, judo, and other grappling styles have been mentioned, not just Bjj.

Further, evidence has been displayed showing these TMAs responding to grappling using their "anti-grappling" methods, and failing miserably.

No one is saying that the arts themselves are "rubbish". What I'm saying is that the anti-grappling portions of these arts are rubbish. Oftentimes the anti-grappling portions are completely fabricated nonsense concocted by modern exponents trying to retain students in a rising MMA/Bjj landscape.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> What I'm saying is that the anti-grappling portions of these arts are rubbish. Oftentimes the anti-grappling portions are completely fabricated nonsense concocted by modern exponents trying to retain students in a rising MMA/Bjj landscape.



and you _know_ this to be true of *every *style and *every* practitioner? or is the truth more like it's true only of those non experts who insist on posting videos of their inadequacies on You Tube?


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Further, evidence has been displayed showing these TMAs responding to grappling using their "anti-grappling" methods, and failing miserably.



Funny enough this statement is a matter of opinion. When a style shows something that works then you say "this is taken from <insert grappling style>".

I changed my post, simply because I feel your issue might be that you spend too much time on YouTube. Not seen more than a single old video that even slightly reflect what I train in my style... and my style currently is WT. Which should have many students.

(My sifu believes that we should never take something as truth unless we can validate it ourselves, so trial and error)


----------



## Tez3

Phobius said:


> My sifu believes that we should never take something as truth unless we can validate it ourselves, so trial and error)



What an eminently sensible person!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> and you _know_ this to be true of *every *style and *every* practitioner?



Every traditional style that claims to have anti-grappling techniques that can disable grapplers and MMA practicioners?

Yes.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Funny enough this statement is a matter of opinion. When a style shows something that works then you say "this is taken from <insert grappling style>".



When we see stuff like this;







or this;





It's not a matter of opinion.



> I changed my post, simply because I feel your issue might be that you spend too much time on YouTube. Not seen more than a single old video that even slightly reflect what I train in my style... and my style currently is WT. Which should have many students.



You need to read more closely. I have no issue with WT. I have issue with WT anti-grappling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

In kung fu, there is a statement that goes something like this "If you have a strong stance then you can prevent someone from taking you to the ground."  For many years I was trying to understand what this means because it didn't make sense that I could still keep my root if someone is lifting me.  A few months ago I think I discovered what this refers to.

I think the statement of preventing the take down refers to the height of a stance.  From what I can tell there is an optimum height for shooting. The effectiveness of the shooting technique is greatly reduced if the grappler shoots too high or too low.  Shooting too high puts the grappler in danger for various short range strikes and martial arts counters like joint locks and throws.  It also means that the grappler is no longer able to by pass strikes making it difficult to grab the target.  If a shooter is shooting too low then they are basically shooting at an angle where they are scrapping their faces on the ground.   Remember the tactic of a grappling shoot is to go under the punches.

During the sparring exercise (which only allowed punches and grappling takedowns) I decided to test two different stances, the first stance was a mid height horse stance, the second stance was a low horse stance.  The mid height horse stance worked well but my opponents still wanted to shoot for the take down, but when I took the low horse stance the shooting attempts almost stopped completely except for 1 attempt.  This low horse stance was used on than about 5 of their fighters.  Including one fighter who only tried do take downs.  While sitting in the low horse stance I noticed that they were hesitant to go in for the shoot. I reviewed the videos of our sparring session and soon realized that the hesitation was because my low stance put my fists at their optimum level to shoot at.  In order for them to shoot they would need to shoot at a level that was too low in order to get under my punches. Even if they did shoot I would still be too low for them to deal with my weight properly.  A low stance also meant that my legs aren't close enough to grab both.  I know the stance made a big difference because my fellow Jow Ga brothers took a different approach (using only a high stance) and were taken down.  The only significant difference between the what they did and what I did was the stance. 

The downside to my stance is that it burned a lot of energy to maintain it, so now I have a better understanding of why my Sifu said I should be able to hold my stances for 3 minutes.  Now the statement "If you have a strong stance then you can prevent someone from taking you to the ground." makes more sense to me.

As for the one guy that tried to shoot on me while in a low stance, he was unsuccessful with the take down.  He was able to grab one leg and my waist when I moved forward to do a low sleep. Because I tried to execute the sweep at a low stance he had to shoot lower than he should to manage.

If I've made this confusing then the short explanation is to think of yourself lifting a 100 pound heavy bag by shooting waist height.  This should be easy because you can use your legs to help in a lift.   Now shoot leg height on the heavy bag and try lifting it,  Still easy right because you can lift the bag in a manner that causes the top weight to fall backwards making it easier to lift the bag.  Now take the same bag and lay it down.  Now shoot on that.  Let me know how that works.  This is what the low stance does to the shoot, but without strong legs, a person won't be able to sit in that stance for long.

So technically I should be able to beat the take down with my stance for the amount of time that I'm able to keep the low stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> So technically I should be able to beat the take down with my stance for the amount of time that I'm able to keep the low stance.


There is no perfect stance to deal with throw. No matter how you may stance, the vertical line from the line defined by your feet is your weak balance angle.

For example, if you stand in horse stance, a

- leg hook on your leg, and
- hand push on your shoulder/neck,

can take you down, no matter how strong your horse stance may have.






As long as you put weight on your leading leg, your opponent can take you down by "foot sweep".






Also your high, middle, low, wide, narrow, strong, weak "horse stance" is not going to help you to stop this throw either.






The best defense against take down is to "change" your stance from one into another at the right moment with good timing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> When we see stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read more closely. I have no issue with WT. I have issue with WT anti-grappling.



Besides "single leg" and "double legs", there are over 300 different throws. Even if you have developed some skill to deal with "leg/legs shooting", you still need to develop other skills to deal with other throws (take downs).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no perfect stance to deal with throw. No matter how you may stance, the vertical line from the line defined by your feet is your weak balance angle..



None of the guys were doing a horse stance.  My horse stance doesn't face opponents like that, mainly because that's a good way to get kicked in the groin.  So that inner hook wouldn't work. Trying that inner hook would put that person in the range of my big punches.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as you put weight on your leading leg, your opponent can take you down by "foot sweep"


Sweeping my horse stance doesn't work either. The low stance makes it easier for me to see sweeps.  It also give me more than enough room to retreat.  If the sweep is too telegraphed then that low stance allows me to do a heel kick while my opponent is on one leg trying to sweep me. I'm making this statement from experience in doing it.  There are other option as well such as pulling back into a cat stance.  I do sweeps all the time and that sweep video looks questionable as to realism of the sweep being demonstrated. Especially the one at (0:30)

Again I'm staying this because I've dealt with these attacks before.  While in a low stance

None of those videos showed the attacker having to deal with punch and kicks.  I think there is an assumption about the saying where people assume that the person in a strong stance is not punching back or kicking, or doing anything else other than just standing there.  This is where people go wrong in trying to defeat something with a strong stance.  Nothing in that saying states that the person isn't moving in a low stance, transitioning into different stances, attacking, or counter attacking.  Most people just automatically assume that there's this kung fu guy just standing there while someone attacks without striking back (similar to the videos that you showed.)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu wang
This is a video of me doing some light sparring.  Take notice of how my body doesn't face my sparring partner the same way as the guys in your video face each other.  I'm smaller guy doing the sweeps.  I will remove the video once you have seen it.
Me doing some light sparring


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Dictionary's evolve.


i think twerk is in the dictionary now?

Syllabification: twerk
Pronunciation: /twərk/

(also twirk)_informal_
*Definition of twerk in English:*
*verb*
[NO OBJECT]
Back to top 
A dance or dance move involving thrusting hip movements and a low, squatting stance:_between flaunting their curves and doing a little twerk here and there, the dancers' rendition of the video was quite impressive
------------------------------------------------

Same thing girls used to do in the 70's 80's and 90's. Shaking of the buttocks. But now the kids call it twerking. Did shaking the buttocks evolve? Is BJJ  that much different than JJJ ground game from 100 years ago?  In both cases was the wheel really reinvented?
_


----------



## Jake104

How dare I compare JJJ or Kosen Judo to BJJ. Let the hate begin.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> This is a video of me doing some light sparring.


The clips that I put up was "skill developing - your opponent gives you that opportunity" clips. The clip that you put up is "skill testing - your opponent won't give you any opportunity" clip. It's apple and orange comparison. You have to "develop" your skill before you can "test" it.

When your opponent doesn't give you that opportunity, you have to create that opportunity by yourself. For example, if you want to "hook" your opponent's left leg when he has right leg forward, you will attack his right leg first, when he steps his right leg back, his left leg will be exposed for your attack.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have to "develop" your skill before you can "test" it


Kung Fu Wang.
My sifu doesn't teach his students this way.  We develop our skills by doing:
1. Forms
2. Sparring

We don't test our skills.  According to your definition of "skill testing" the opponent won't give you any opportunity"  For us that's not testing, that's the reality of a fight and my school trains based on the reality of a fight. The reality of all fights is this: Your enemy / opponent isn't going to willingly give you an opportunity to do them harm.  Because of this reality we develop our skills by not willingly giving our sparring partners the opportunity.  I don't see how it's apples and oranges.  Not all offensive techniques will work on the same defense. The videos won't that you show won't work on me because of the way I face my opponent.  The only way those techniques would work on me is if I face my opponent in a similar manner that is shown in the video.

I'm not saying trips and throws won't work against me, I'm just saying those techniques won't work against the type of stance that I take. There are other throws and trips that work against my stance but if I think those are coming, then I change my stance, but still keep it low.


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> _Is BJJ  that much different than JJJ ground game from 100 years ago?  In both cases was the wheel really reinvented?_



Uh yeah, Bjj ground work is very different from ground work 100 years ago. There wasn't even a closed guard system in Bjj until the latter half of the 20th century, The Half Guard system didn't develop until the late 80s, The Triangle Choke wasn't invented until about the 1930s or 40s, and on and on and on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> My sifu doesn't teach his students this way.  We develop our skills by doing:
> 1. Forms
> 2. Sparring.


No matter what MA style that you may train, I don't believe you can develop skill just from solo form to sparring without going through "partner drill".


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Uh yeah, Bjj ground work is very different from ground work 100 years ago. There wasn't even a closed guard system in Bjj until the latter half of the 20th century, The Half Guard system didn't develop until the late 80s, The Triangle Choke wasn't invented until about the 1930s or 40s, and on and on and on.



Are you sure then that it was invented at this point? I have heard many claim, even from BJJ/GJJ, that 100 years ago that most of jiu jitsu knowledge had become fractioned such as parts of it in styles as judo and aikido. Due to historical events or simply sports.

First when jiu jitsu was introduced to Gracie again did it come to life anew as a full fledged system. Not seen it stated that it was ever invented by Gracie. Helio did perfect the techniques but not seen anything as to whether the techniques were rediscovered or reinvented.

As for the triangle choke, noone knows when it was invented, or rather I do not know. However it was caught in video already in 1920 for the first time by a judo master I believe.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No matter what MA style that you may train, I don't believe you can develop skill just from solo form to sparring without going through "partner drill


Well today is your lucky day.  Those sweeps that you saw in the video were always trained in form and then directly to sparring.  The punches were the same way.  The video that you saw was 6 months after joining the school.  All of those attacks that you saw me do were learned without a "partner drill."  We learn technique, through repetitive practice without partners. This allows us to focus on the technique and not on trying to hit someone.  Then when it's time to train on actually using the technique we spar.

The only time we do anything that is close to "partner drill" as you describe it is when we are trying to get a basic understanding of how something works. We also use partner drills for is Chin-na, throws, and anti-grappling because for us, those require the ability to sense movement and weight.  

It may be difficult to believe but this is how we train.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> In kung fu, there is a statement that goes something like this "If you have a strong stance then you can prevent someone from taking you to the ground."  For many years I was trying to understand what this means because it didn't make sense that I could still keep my root if someone is lifting me.  A few months ago I think I discovered what this refers to.
> 
> I think the statement of preventing the take down refers to the height of a stance.  From what I can tell there is an optimum height for shooting. The effectiveness of the shooting technique is greatly reduced if the grappler shoots too high or too low.  Shooting too high puts the grappler in danger for various short range strikes and martial arts counters like joint locks and throws.  It also means that the grappler is no longer able to by pass strikes making it difficult to grab the target.  If a shooter is shooting too low then they are basically shooting at an angle where they are scrapping their faces on the ground.   Remember the tactic of a grappling shoot is to go under the punches.
> 
> During the sparring exercise (which only allowed punches and grappling takedowns) I decided to test two different stances, the first stance was a mid height horse stance, the second stance was a low horse stance.  The mid height horse stance worked well but my opponents still wanted to shoot for the take down, but when I took the low horse stance the shooting attempts almost stopped completely except for 1 attempt.  This low horse stance was used on than about 5 of their fighters.  Including one fighter who only tried do take downs.  While sitting in the low horse stance I noticed that they were hesitant to go in for the shoot. I reviewed the videos of our sparring session and soon realized that the hesitation was because my low stance put my fists at their optimum level to shoot at.  In order for them to shoot they would need to shoot at a level that was too low in order to get under my punches. Even if they did shoot I would still be too low for them to deal with my weight properly.  A low stance also meant that my legs aren't close enough to grab both.  I know the stance made a big difference because my fellow Jow Ga brothers took a different approach (using only a high stance) and were taken down.  The only significant difference between the what they did and what I did was the stance.
> 
> The downside to my stance is that it burned a lot of energy to maintain it, so now I have a better understanding of why my Sifu said I should be able to hold my stances for 3 minutes.  Now the statement "If you have a strong stance then you can prevent someone from taking you to the ground." makes more sense to me.
> 
> As for the one guy that tried to shoot on me while in a low stance, he was unsuccessful with the take down.  He was able to grab one leg and my waist when I moved forward to do a low sleep. Because I tried to execute the sweep at a low stance he had to shoot lower than he should to manage.
> 
> If I've made this confusing then the short explanation is to think of yourself lifting a 100 pound heavy bag by shooting waist height.  This should be easy because you can use your legs to help in a lift.   Now shoot leg height on the heavy bag and try lifting it,  Still easy right because you can lift the bag in a manner that causes the top weight to fall backwards making it easier to lift the bag.  Now take the same bag and lay it down.  Now shoot on that.  Let me know how that works.  This is what the low stance does to the shoot, but without strong legs, a person won't be able to sit in that stance for long.
> 
> So technically I should be able to beat the take down with my stance for the amount of time that I'm able to keep the low stance.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Are you sure then that it was invented at this point? I have heard many claim, even from BJJ/GJJ, that 100 years ago that most of jiu jitsu knowledge had become fractioned such as parts of it in styles as judo and aikido. Due to historical events or simply sports.
> 
> First when jiu jitsu was introduced to Gracie again did it come to life anew as a full fledged system. Not seen it stated that it was ever invented by Gracie. Helio did perfect the techniques but not seen anything as to whether the techniques were rediscovered or reinvented.
> 
> As for the triangle choke, noone knows when it was invented, or rather I do not know. However it was caught in video already in 1920 for the first time by a judo master I believe.



No one knows exactly when it was invented, just that a Judoka invented it in the early 20th century. My point was that you wouldn't be seeing a triangle choke in early Bjj because they didn't know the move. Further, since it's introduction, several forms of entry and application have developed around that technique. The same applies to the closed guard and the half guard. While the position itself may have existed for centuries, the system built around those positions are a very recent development. 

The point is that Bjj today looks very different from Bjj 100 years ago.


----------



## Phobius

I agree, and this is a point I think many TMAs fail to understand. TMA today looks very different to what it was 100 years ago. All arts did. Problem is that there is no way around such a change because you train with your master, not with your masters master and so on...

Meaning you only get the last interpretation. Each generation will increase the complexity and diversity of your art. Some versions will disappear after some generations and others will increase in validity or simply through good marketing.

Today with all the information sharing and YouTube I believe such a change to increase in speed. Problem however with those two gifs you shared was that first of all it was two bad ones and most likely at least one of them was very old. Things dont look the same today as it does in the videos you watch on YouTube.

Even worse are that some masters (not styles) seem to wish to so called "undo" the change that occurs in their style and most often by "reinventing" some secret technique to be the be all master all technique to defeat the world and end poverty. I am fairly certain these things exist in BJJ as well in regards to people becoming too obsessed with the sport part and get weird opinion on the self defense aspect of it.

We are all in the same boat, styles always change. Whether it is changing back to something it once was or to something completely new is not something I would have any clue on.

Therefore I say again, validate your own knowledge and trust yourself. The rest matters not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


>


Wrestlers and grapplers have been using the low stance for many centuries as a standard and I think the purpose of the low stance was lost for many Chinese Martial arts style even though practitioners of chinese martial arts are always showcasing low stances in their forms.  When I see pictures like the one you posted then it begins to make sense to why so many CMA's have a low stances in their fighting system.  I know the function of the low stance is lost on most CMA practitioners just from watching all of the youtube fights bjj vs kung fu, and kung fu sparring competitions where the CMA guy is always taken down while they are in a high stance. 

You rarely see a kung fu practitioner take a low stance in a fight even though almost every CMA practitioner can spew with pride of why stances are so important. Unfortunately none of them will say that the low stance helps to address those who want to grapple, but that's because they don't understand the purpose of the low stance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> Meaning you only get the last interpretation. Each generation will increase the complexity and diversity of your art. Some versions will disappear after some generations and others will increase in validity or simply through good marketing.


  This is very true, this is why Jow Ga looks slightly different depending on the lineage and why the same form has different variations.



Phobius said:


> Problem however with those two gifs you shared was that first of all it was two bad ones and most likely at least one of them was very old.


  I can only speak about the gif for the Jow Ga, The technique that he was using was not a grappling or anti-grappling technique. What that Sifu did was to use a striking technique against a grappling attack.  Our anti-grappling technique when done in form has this characteristic of both arms out in front, (see 0:28 - 0:29)  In this particular video my SiGung is only doing part of the actual technique.  The stance that is done does not go with anti-grappling technique that he is showing with both arms out. The reason why is because Jow Ga is big on not showing how things work to the public, this way the meaning will be lost to anyone trying to learn from the video. But if you do see someone do that in any of the Jow Ga forms, then that's what they are showing, part of our anti-grappling technique.  Notice that it's not a strike to the face or the body


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> I agree, and this is a point I think many TMAs fail to understand. TMA today looks very different to what it was 100 years ago. All arts did. Problem is that there is no way around such a change because you train with your master, not with your masters master and so on...
> 
> Meaning you only get the last interpretation. Each generation will increase the complexity and diversity of your art. Some versions will disappear after some generations and others will increase in validity or simply through good marketing.
> 
> Today with all the information sharing and YouTube I believe such a change to increase in speed. Problem however with those two gifs you shared was that first of all it was two bad ones and most likely at least one of them was very old. Things dont look the same today as it does in the videos you watch on YouTube.



I disagree. You can still purchase those Victor Gutierrez Anti-grappling DVDs online, and those DVDs carry an extremely high rating among its purchasers. So not only are people still buying those DVDs, but they actually believe that those flawed anti-grappling techniques are effective. I seriously doubt Gutierrez, or Boztepe are saying that the anti-grappling stuff they created is nonsense. In fact, I'm pretty sure both are still teaching that silliness to a new generation of their students.

That Jow Ga vid is from 2013.  



> Even worse are that some masters (not styles) seem to wish to so called "undo" the change that occurs in their style and most often by "reinventing" some secret technique to be the be all master all technique to defeat the world and end poverty. I am fairly certain these things exist in BJJ as well in regards to people becoming too obsessed with the sport part and get weird opinion on the self defense aspect of it.



In the case of Bjj, that style changes based on pressure from outside forces, and much of that arises from its tradition of testing its effectiveness as often as possible. So Bjj has changed or added to over the decades based on whatever is pressuring its effectiveness. If something doesn't work, its forgotten, or tossed aside. If someone comes up with an innovative way to do a new hold, choke, guard, etc. It will be rapidly adopted and become part of the style.

Take half guard for example. That hold has been in Judo for decades, but Judoka (and Bjjers) only used it as a holding position for time to run out. Eventually it disappeared from Judo almost entirely. It was never seen as a go-to move until the 1990s when a Bjj sport practitioner used it offensively because he had a damaged knee and couldn't use full guard. Later Eddie Bravo and Lucas Leites adapted the half guard for MMA. Now there are practitioners who base their entire fighting style off of half guard, and an entire sub-system of techniques have arisen from that one neglected position. All of which is now a part of Bjj.

Stuff like that simply doesn't happen in TMAs.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> In the case of Bjj, that style changes based on pressure from outside forces, and much of that arises from its tradition of testing its effectiveness as often as possible. So Bjj has changed or added to over the decades based on whatever is pressuring its effectiveness. If something doesn't work, its forgotten, or tossed aside. If someone comes up with an innovative way to do a new hold, choke, guard, etc. It will be rapidly adopted and become part of the style.
> 
> ...Stuff like that simply doesn't happen in TMAs.



This isn't just the case with BJJ, it's true of every competitive sport. If it's an activity that's open and out there being tested regularly by a lot of people, it will rapidly evolve and improve.

TMAs are just the opposite. They are not typically so open and regularly tested against non-traditional challeges, so there is no basis for evolution. Instead you get hypothetical debates over whose sifu or sensei is more awesome, who has the deadliest secret technique, yada yada yada.

Traditions are fine, but there is a downside to being overly secretive, rigid, authoritarian, and generally being "stuck in your ways".


...er now you see why I wasn't always so popular in my old WT assn.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Wrestlers and grapplers have been using the low stance for many centuries as a standard and I think the purpose of the low stance was lost for many Chinese Martial arts style even though practitioners of chinese martial arts are always showcasing low stances in their forms.  When I see pictures like the one you posted then it begins to make sense to why so many CMA's have a low stances in their fighting system.  I know the function of the low stance is lost on most CMA practitioners just from watching all of the youtube fights bjj vs kung fu, and kung fu sparring competitions where the CMA guy is always taken down while they are in a high stance.
> 
> You rarely see a kung fu practitioner take a low stance in a fight even though almost every CMA practitioner can spew with pride of why stances are so important. Unfortunately none of them will say that the low stance helps to address those who want to grapple, but that's because they don't understand the purpose of the low stance.



A low stance stops you striking as well as you could. So if you are not facing good takedowns there is no point. If I do Thai. Imfloat my front foot.

Mma has a half and half.


----------



## Jake104

Hanzou said:


> Uh yeah, Bjj ground work is very different from ground work 100 years ago. There wasn't even a closed guard system in Bjj until the latter half of the 20th century, The Half Guard system didn't develop until the late 80s, The Triangle Choke wasn't invented until about the 1930s or 40s, and on and on and on.


Cool aid anyone???


----------



## Jake104




----------



## Jake104

Triangles start @11:30 mark






Still think the wheel was reinvented? It looks like circa 1960. Maybe they learned that from the Gracie's IDK?


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Traditions are fine, but there is a downside to being overly secretive, rigid, authoritarian, and generally being "stuck in your ways".


  I agree which is why I'm glad that we spar with other fighters


drop bear said:


> A low stance stops you striking as well as you could. So if you are not facing good takedowns there is no point. If I do Thai. Imfloat my front foot.
> 
> Mma has a half and half.


The horse stance has variable height. The only thing you can't do in a horse stance is initiate a proper shoot for the legs or waist. (but I could be wrong), but considering that no one train how to shoot by using a horse stance, my guess would be that it doesn't work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Jake104 said:


> Triangles start @11:30 mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still think the wheel was reinvented? It looks like circa 1960. Maybe they learned that from the Gracie's IDK?





Someone form the Gracie camp was quoted that the triangle choke has always been a part of jui jitsu 

It is a common misconception that the triangle did not exist in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu before Rolls Gracie, who (according to some circles) would have found the technique in an old Judo book. When asked about the veracity of this statement, Mario Tallarico, Rolls Gracie’s second black belt, said:

"The triangle was a very old technique from Judo that was used in Jiu Jitsu from the beginning. As it was not associated with the armbar or the crossing of the arm to the side, it was too easy to defend and seldom used".
Source

Discovery vs invention in jiu jitsu another good article

Old footage of a variation of the triangle choke
criador do Sankaku-Jime (triângulo no Jiu-Jitsu)


----------



## Hanzou

Jake104 said:


> Cool aid anyone???



If you're implying that I'm somehow wrong about any of that, please feel free to actually prove it instead of making pointless comments.

Further what's the point of showing those Judo videos? The person asked about Bjj, not Judo, and I said that the Triangle Choke came from Judo at some point in Bjj's development.

I also think its hilarious that you're focusing on merely the Triangle choke, and not on the closed guard or the half guard, which were far more pivotal developments in Bjj than the Triangle choke.


----------



## Phobius

Closed guard is not an invention of BJJ, wasnt it even introduced to BJJ by a Judo practitioner? Believe this to be an old technique going back to very beginning of grappling.

As for half guard it is an old technique as well, Look up '_niju garami'._


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Someone form the Gracie camp was quoted that the triangle choke has always been a part of jui jitsu
> 
> It is a common misconception that the triangle did not exist in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu before Rolls Gracie, who (according to some circles) would have found the technique in an old Judo book. When asked about the veracity of this statement, Mario Tallarico, Rolls Gracie’s second black belt, said:
> 
> "The triangle was a very old technique from Judo that was used in Jiu Jitsu from the beginning. As it was not associated with the armbar or the crossing of the arm to the side, it was too easy to defend and seldom used".
> Source
> 
> Discovery vs invention in jiu jitsu another good article
> 
> Old footage of a variation of the triangle choke
> criador do Sankaku-Jime (triângulo no Jiu-Jitsu)



And you contradict yourself in your own post. The first article states that Oda created the Triangle Choke in the early 20th century, but then you post another article that says that nothing is invented, just rediscovered.

The point is this; Bjj looks different than it did 100 years ago. Frankly it looks different than it did in the 1950s and 60s when Helio was fighting. Why? Because it has evolved in that time period. Going back to the original point of this line of discussion, that puts it on a different track than styles like Jow Ga or Wing Chun that focus on trying to stay as close to the old ways as possible with their forms and traditions.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Closed guard is not an invention of BJJ, wasnt it even introduced to BJJ by a Judo practitioner? Believe this to be an old technique going back to very beginning of grappling.
> 
> As for half guard it is an old technique as well, Look up '_niju garami'._



Again, it's not the hold itself, its the position and the system built around the original hold.

For example, this is Judo "half guard";






This is Bjj half guard;






This is Leites Half Guard;






In Judo, the development of the half guard stopped at the hold. Just like the development of the guard in Judo stopped at the trunk hold. It was Bjj exponents that developed the complex systems around those holds, and made them viable grappling positions. As I stated earlier, before the 1990s, practitioners in both  Judo and Bjj viewed the hold that we now call Half Guard as a position of desperation that no one wanted to end up in. After Roberto Correa, Eddie Bravo, and Lucas Leites, the half guard is now viewed as a viable, and potentially devastating grappling position.

In fact, the development of the half guard has moved so far away from the original Judo hold that the original hold is now considered an incorrectly done half guard.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> that puts it on a different track than styles like Jow Ga or Wing Chun that focus on trying to stay as close to the old ways as possible with their forms and traditions.



This statement is not correct. There are traditionalists and McDojos in Wing Chun (dont know about Jow Ga) but while McDojos are a majority by concept alone this does not mean you know anything about Wing Chun and how it develops.

The only fact I need to back me up on this, simple, I do not train the way you say I do. Neither does anyone I know personally.

However yes there are those that think Ip Man's way of teaching is an old tradition, as such that all forms are holy in their existence. My belief is that he wanted to teach his system using the tools he could. The system however is the concept and made understandable through all forms he taught. Once you understand the art concept in truth you perfect it for your own use.

Being very tall myself it was quickly understood that an art is not mirroring the techniques as taught by your teacher but understanding the true intention within those techniques.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> As I stated earlier, before the 1990s, practitioners in both  Judo and Bjj viewed the hold that we now call Half Guard as a position of desperation that no one wanted to end up in. After Roberto Correa, Eddie Bravo, and Lucas Leites, the half guard is now viewed as a viable, and potentially devastating grappling position.



None of us even know how life was in feudal china.

Not saying you are wrong since yes, martial arts evolve. More now than before because today coming in contact with another martial art style is way less fatal meaning you can learn something and take it back with you home. Just saying you can't not know anything for sure.

TMAs evolve as well, all martial arts evolve. None look anything like it did 100+ years ago. Problem is that some want to think that the old style of martial art still exist in untouched shape and that it holds a magical key to kill all on sight if needed.

Does not mean old style martial art was not very effective in ways we can not imagine today, but terms were different. People died and often wore sharp weapons most likely.

In 50 years the techniques that today are so very important will no longer be of much concern, and new techniques that were today considered unused mostly will have evolved into something new and better. Once those techniques exist maybe these techniques will come back and once more evolve into the techniques they are today.

You forget that a technique when no longer practised regularly devolves to its most basic shape, once in that shape people will not focus as much on it and be less prepared for its application. This leads to new techniques evolving in ways that make it easier to bring back basic techniques and once again gain advantage. A circle of life.

Reason being, there are only so many ways a body may move, this will not change until we as humankind changes.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> This statement is not correct. There are traditionalists and McDojos in Wing Chun (dont know about Jow Ga) but while McDojos are a majority by concept alone this does not mean you know anything about Wing Chun and how it develops.
> 
> The only fact I need to back me up on this, simple, I do not train the way you say I do. Neither does anyone I know personally.
> 
> However yes there are those that think Ip Man's way of teaching is an old tradition, as such that all forms are holy in their existence. My belief is that he wanted to teach his system using the tools he could. The system however is the concept and made understandable through all forms he taught. Once you understand the art concept in truth you perfect it for your own use.
> 
> Being very tall myself it was quickly understood that an art is not mirroring the techniques as taught by your teacher but understanding the true intention within those techniques.



Adapting the style to your body type isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is someone coming in and altering the way the entire system works, like Roberto Correa and the half guard, or  Eddie Bravo with 10th Planet JJ, or Ricardo De La Riva and the DLR guard. When was the last time that happened with Wing Chun?


----------



## LFJ

Hanzou said:


> Adapting the style to your body type isn't what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is someone coming in and altering the way the entire system works, like Roberto Correa and the half guard, or  Eddie Bravo with 10th Planet JJ, or Ricardo De La Riva and the DLR guard. When was the last time that happened with Wing Chun?



Leung Ting with "Wing Tsun".
William Cheung with "Traditional Wing Chun".


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> None of us even know how life was in feudal china.
> 
> Not saying you are wrong since yes, martial arts evolve. More now than before because today coming in contact with another martial art style is way less fatal meaning you can learn something and take it back with you home. Just saying you can't not know anything for sure.



Actually we do know what life was like in feudal China. There's entire volumes of books and scholarship done in that particular area. 



> TMAs evolve as well, all martial arts evolve. None look anything like it did 100+ years ago. Problem is that some want to think that the old style of martial art still exist in untouched shape and that it holds a magical key to kill all on sight if needed.
> 
> Does not mean old style martial art was not very effective in ways we can not imagine today, but terms were different. People died and often wore sharp weapons most likely.



No one is saying that the old style wasn't effective. The argument is that when you're attempting to apply an old style against a more modern style, you're going to have some problems.

Again, I have no idea if Wing Chun or Jow Ga is effective or not in general terms. However, the techniques shown against grappling were not effective.



> In 50 years the techniques that today are so very important will no longer be of much concern, and new techniques that were today considered unused mostly will have evolved into something new and better. Once those techniques exist maybe these techniques will come back and once more evolve into the techniques they are today.
> 
> You forget that a technique when no longer practised regularly devolves to its most basic shape, once in that shape people will not focus as much on it and be less prepared for its application. This leads to new techniques evolving in ways that make it easier to bring back basic techniques and once again gain advantage. A circle of life.
> 
> Reason being, there are only so many ways a body may move, this will not change until we as humankind changes.



Eh, that's not necessarily true. That well worn adage is brought up quite often to show that there's nothing new under the sun. However, when Bjj emerged on the scene in the 1990s, it took established grapplers a while to become used to the methods used by the system. It's also why you have Judoka who cross-train in Bjj.


----------



## Hanzou

LFJ said:


> Leung Ting with "Wing Tsun".
> William Cheung with "Traditional Wing Chun".



Are those actual system alterations, or lineage squabbles?


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> Eh, that's not necessarily true. That well worn adage is brought up quite often to show that there's nothing new under the sun. However, when Bjj emerged on the scene in the 1990s, it took established grapplers a while to become used to the methods used by the system. It's also why you have Judoka who cross-train in Bjj.





Hanzou said:


> Are those actual system alterations, or lineage squabbles?



Yip Man version of Wing Chun is a system alteration. His students made alterations of their own, their students made alterations. It is the concepts however that should remain the same in order to remain true to the art in its core. Not sure but think "Traditional Wing Chun" is no longer staying true to the concepts, but could be wrong.

Lets hope traditionalists dont shoot me for saying this.

(I think it is time to end this discussion, it goes nowhere fast and gives nothing of value.)

Hanzou it does not matter what you think, but I start to get a feeling that you are not interested in exploring whether or not you are correct. If that is the case and you want to be correct no matter what then that is fine as well. Just not my intention with being on this forum.


----------



## LFJ

Hanzou said:


> Are those actual system alterations, or lineage squabbles?



Both! The two systems are quite a bit different in many areas, but their founders both claim to have gotten the good stuff from Yip Man behind closed doors.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> ...their founders both claim to have gotten* the good stuff* from Yip Man behind closed doors.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> And you contradict yourself in your own post. The first article states that Oda created the Triangle Choke in the early 20th century, but then you post another article that says that nothing is invented, just rediscovered.
> 
> The point is this; Bjj looks different than it did 100 years ago. Frankly it looks different than it did in the 1950s and 60s when Helio was fighting. Why? Because it has evolved in that time period. Going back to the original point of this line of discussion, that puts it on a different track than styles like Jow Ga or Wing Chun that focus on trying to stay as close to the old ways as possible with their forms and traditions.



How am I contradicting myself when I post information from sources that I don't write?  This isn't what I'm saying this is what BJJ guys are saying so if you got beef with that then take it up with them.


----------



## Hanzou

Phobius said:


> Hanzou it does not matter what you think, but I start to get a feeling that you are not interested in exploring whether or not you are correct. If that is the case and you want to be correct no matter what then that is fine as well. Just not my intention with being on this forum.



It doesn't matter what I think? Well it's nice to know that you respect the person you're having a discussion with.

I'm correct that Bjj is different than it was 100 years ago. I'm also correct that while people still move the same way, martial art innovators create new things all the time to make their style better overall. Thus, a traditional stylist can't hope to develop coherent strategies against modern martial arts if their style of choice purposely views innovation as something dangerous.

Which is why stuff like Wing Chun or Jow Ga anti-grappling is destined for failure.



JowGaWolf said:


> How am I contradicting myself when I post information from sources that I don't write?  This isn't what I'm saying this is what BJJ guys are saying so if you got beef with that then take it up with them.



Those guys are free to disagree since they're two different people. However, if *your* argument is that people don't invent stuff in Martial Arts, and that everything is already created and people just "rediscover them", you posted an article that contradicts your argument.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> This statement is not correct. There are traditionalists and McDojos in Wing Chun (dont know about Jow Ga) but while McDojos are a majority by concept alone this does not mean you know anything about Wing Chun and how it develops.


Jow Ga keeps tradition but it also evolves.  There's no rule that says a martial art can only keep tradition or only be progressive. There are stories in Jow Ga about our founder fighting and losing and developing Jow Ga.  We keep tradition as our root and learn how to apply that technique against who we spar against.  For example, in my school we video tape all of our sparring against other schools, then we go back and analyze the session and talk about how our technique worked, what were the complications, did we pick the correct technique to defend or attack with, how is the technique in application different from the technique in form, and in practice. We do this so that we don't abandon Jow Ga.  Our mentality is not to find something outside of Jow Ga as a solution but to have a better understand our techniques so that we can successfully apply them to a new situation. We keep the old techniques because that's the root and we add "new" applications and understanding to our library.  We don't throw stuff away.

Unfortunately many people inside and outside of TMA make the assumption that there can't be variations of a traditional technique that everything has to be performed exactly the same as it is in form and demo. This makes the style very limited and I can't see anyone realistically fighting in such a limited way even back then. Kung Fu Sifus and practitioners that use the technique in real fights and in sparring would have done variations of a root technique as ways to adjust to the attacker.  

This isn't a difficult concept to understand, but ego, attitude, and lack of willingness to understand get in the way. 


Phobius said:


> The only fact I need to back me up on this, simple, I do not train the way you say I do. Neither does anyone I know personally.


 This doesn't matter to some people because they know better than you even though they don't train in the same school or under the same teacher.



Phobius said:


> Being very tall myself it was quickly understood that an art is not mirroring the techniques as taught by your teacher but understanding the true intention within those techniques.


 When you say that you are tall, the first thing that comes to mind is that you have to adjust the techniques to account for your size and fighting someone much smaller.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Those guys are free to disagree since they're two different people. However, if *your* argument is that people don't invent stuff in Martial Arts, and that everything is already created and people just "rediscover them", you posted an article that contradicts your argument.


1st: You tell me what my argument is.  When I have not said a word about Bjj.  Everything that I posted there was quoted from those sources. 

Like I said.  If you got beef with what is there then go argue with the people who made those statements,  Those statements are not my own.  I just simply posted information from a bjj source. I could care less about a triangle hold.



Hanzou said:


> that everything is already created and people just "rediscover them", you posted an article that contradicts your argument.


  Show me where I made that statement.

My real purpose of me posting those sources was because I knew you would respond with assumptions and misconceptions about me, even when the words aren't mine. So me post for me posting those sources was just my entertainment.  If Bjj guy says so then they are free to disagree, but when a non-bjj guy says so then it's a sin.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> 1st: You tell me what my argument is.  When I have not said a word about Bjj.  Everything that I posted there was quoted from those sources.



So do you disagree with the following article that you posted;

Discovery vs. Invention in Jiu Jitsu - The Jiu Jitsu Journey

???



> Like I said.  If you got beef with what is there then go argue with the people who made those statements,  Those statements are not my own.  I just simply posted information from a bjj source. I could care less about a triangle hold.



Why would I argue with two people who have two very different opinions? I'm arguing with the person who posted them both up to seemingly support their argument (whatever that may be).



> My real purpose of me posting those sources was because I knew you would respond with assumptions and misconceptions about me, even when the words aren't mine. So me post for me posting those sources was just my entertainment.  If Bjj guy says so then they are free to disagree, but when a non-bjj guy says so then it's a sin.



Again, the problem is that the two articles contradict each other. One says that nothing in martial arts is invented, while another clearly states that the choke was invented by Oda. Thus, I'm curious why you posted both of those articles up in the first place, and what argument you were trying to make.


----------



## JPinAZ

since none of the recent posts between you 2 really have anything to do with WC at this point and has really turned into hashing personal differences, could you two please take it to PM? (or get a room! lol)

And no, I'm not a mod. Just someone getting tired of sifting thru the pages of personal differences and arguing about non-wc related issues. thanks!


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> Are those actual system alterations, or lineage squabbles?



Both. But there is a subtle but significant difference in the claims of these two self promoting narcissists:

_William_ _Cheung_ took what he got from Grandmaster Yip, used it to invent an altered system, and then claimed it is actually the only true and authentic system and thus _is better than everybody else's._

_Leung Ting_ just claims to have understood Yip Man's final perspective best, and to be smarter and more talented than everybody else, so his _admittedly_ altered and trademarked system_ is better than everybody else's.
_
In this sense, I'd have to say that my old sifu, LT was actually being more honest. Regardless, neither of these guys was improving the WC system the way you describe what happened in BJJ.

The BJJ evolution you describe, like the evolution of other competitive sports was the result of new techniques being introduced from a variety of sources and being tested by many competitors in competition and practice. I see no evidence of that kind of scientific testing and development in most TMA. This bothers me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Me doing an anti-grappling technique taught in Jow Ga.

About the video.
1. This was not a demo. This was live sparring
2. This guy was actually trying to take me down
3. The speed at which he comes in is not a factor.  If he came in faster the result would have been the same.
4.  I did not try to stop him in his tracks but I allowed his energy to flow pass me which assist me in turning him. The more force that he uses to come in the easier it's going to be for me to use his energy to turn him.
5. Instead of him taking me down, I end up taking him down.
6. There are other techniques that come into play but the only one that I'm willing to share is that I was in a Traditional Chinese Martial Arts horse stance when his attack began.

This is a sample of just one grappling/ anti-grappling technique that is taught in my Jow Ga lineage.  There is no fancy striking like the video from the Jow Ga Sifu in Australia. Jow Ga is very practical.

I will take this video down sometime today


----------



## JowGaWolf

JPinAZ said:


> since none of the recent posts between you 2 really have anything to do with WC at this point and has really turned into hashing personal differences, could you two please take it to PM? (or get a room! lol)
> 
> And no, I'm not a mod. Just someone getting tired of sifting thru the pages of personal differences and arguing about non-wc related issues. thanks!


I will stop talking about Jow Ga but some of the same anti-grappling techniques that are in my system are also found in other systems of Kung Fu including Wing Chun.  The only problem is that there are very few video examples of this outside of a demo.


----------



## Phobius

Hanzou said:


> It doesn't matter what I think? Well it's nice to know that you respect the person you're having a discussion with.



The accident of editing text in hindsight. Meant to say that it seems you do not focus on discussing your thoughts but just enforcing that you are right. As in it doesnt seem like the subject itself matters to you, but just that you are right in it. Sorry for the rude message the way it came out, just dont know how my brain read that text.



As for JowGaWolf movie, was his intention known to you in advance, as in training takedown? Or are you always trying to keep such a horse stance?

No complaints however. It was a nice follow through.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> Me doing an anti-grappling technique taught in Jow Ga.
> 
> 
> I will take this video down sometime today



I'd like to check out your videos, but every time I try the link is no good. Did you_ already_ take this one down? If so, why?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> As for JowGaWolf movie, was his intention known to you in advance, as in training takedown? Or are you always trying to keep such a horse stance?



I told someone that I wouldn't talk about my fighting style so I will try to frame my answer in a way that is pretty much universal for any Traditional Chinese Martial Art which would include Wing Chun.

*was his intention known to you in advance, as in training takedown? *The short answer is no. I've only trained using this technique maybe 2 or 3 times total in the same day.  2 of those times consisted of me getting a feel for what I need to do.  The 3 time consisted of me asking my Sifu to apply the technique to me.  I needed to understand where he was applying the pressure and how he was turning the opponent. So when he did the technique on me I gained a better understanding of what I should do.  

When I fight I heavily rely on a lot of sensing.  It's difficult to explain but I know for a fact that Wing Chun has it in some of their exercises that serve the same purpose as Tai Chi Push hands. So if you have practiced any of those then you'll have a better idea of what I mean when I say. "When if feel certain pressures on my arm I can sense where that person is weak, what that person is trying to position themselves to do, and how to address it.  I know this may seem like the "fake kung fu stuff" to others but that's what happened in that video.

In that particular video I had no idea that he was going to shoot on me.  *My first line of defense was to take a stance that would allow me to deal with grappling*. Cat stance (which is similar to one of the Wing Chun stances) is no good for grappling.  It's good for other things but not for grappling.  Here's the secret to stances that I would recommend Traditional Chinese Martial artists to at least give some thought to especially Wing Chun practitioners.  This is something that I learned on my own "You can only retreat as far as your rear leg."  It doesn't matter what style of fighting a person does this is going to hold true for almost every fighting style no matter the fighting system. Now for Wing Chun practitioners, when you are in your stance see how far you can move backward without first lifting that rear foot.  The reason I want you do this is so that you can understand the true distance of your possible retreat when a shoot comes in.  Having to lift that rear foot first uses valuable time that could be use to get out of the way. Just give it some thought or even try it out.  I'm only suggesting this as a way to understand your current fighting stances. With that said.  My first line of defense was my stance. 

*My second line of defense is the sensing part.* This training involves 2 things. The first part is being connected to your opponent and being able to read movement through touch.  This is something that Wing Chun does. The 2nd part of sensing is you have to know how it feels when someone shoots on you.  For this was the simple part.  My Sifu first showed the technique and how it works.  Then the students took turns practicing it on each other where one student would simulate the shoot and the other student would become familiar with how to turn. While learning how to turn our body we become aware of how it feels to our arms.  So when someone shoots, that similar pressure on arms (sensing) is what triggers the technique.  So for me, when shoots feel a certain way on my arm I know what to do based on how it feels. 

It wasn't my plan to turn him that way. I wasn't sitting there thinking " if he does this then I'll do this technique."  It's more like, "The pressure on my arms feels like this technique so I'll do that technique."  In the video I'm actually about to hit him with a hook right before he drops under me.  The moment he did that the pressure against my arm made me aware that he was going for the take down.
*
Or are you always trying to keep such a horse stance?*
I move in and out of stances, but if I think someone will try to grapple then I will stick to the more solid horse stance.  The height of my stance depends on how tall my opponent is.  If I'm not sure about my opponent then I'll take a low horse stance for safety precautions until I can figure if the guy is a grappling threat.  Sometimes you can expose a grappler by raising your stance just high enough to look like a good opportunity to for a take down.  If they are a grappler then their eyes will light up and you'll feel them focusing on your lower body instead of trying to knock your head off.

Thanks


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> I'd like to check out your videos, but every time I try the link is no good. Did you_ already_ take this one down? If so, why?


I just checked and it still plays.  I haven't taken it down yet.


----------



## JPinAZ

geezer said:


> _William_ _Cheung_ took what he got from Grandmaster Yip, used it to invent an altered system, and then claimed it is actually the only true and authentic system and thus _is better than everybody else's_.



While I am in no place to argue where GM WC got his TWC from (whether from Yip Man or some from some other source), I find it very difficult to buy that William Cheung simply made it up/invented it. The story of it's origin? who knows (besides GM WC). But, while TWC has clear differences in many areas when compared to most other mainstream Ip Man WC, I also can relate to some of those differences from my experience in my own lineage. Which tells me it is still WC and couldn't simply be made up my GM WC, even if the story of it's origin is questionable by some...


----------



## Phobius

JowGaWolf said:


> Cat stance (which is similar to one of the Wing Chun stances) is no good for grappling.  It's good for other things but not for grappling.  Here's the secret to stances that I would recommend Traditional Chinese Martial artists to at least give some thought to especially Wing Chun practitioners.  This is something that I learned on my own "You can only retreat as far as your rear leg."  [...] Now for Wing Chun practitioners, when you are in your stance see how far you can move backward without first lifting that rear foot.  The reason I want you do this is so that you can understand the true distance of your possible retreat when a shoot comes in.



First of all, thanks for the informative post. Understand and respect the wish to hold some information to yourself. This is similar to my own situation.

As for the stance discussion, I will say this. The view I have been taught in terms of cat stance and WT is that this is a desirable stance. Sort of like the stance that would put us in an ideal situation but the problem is that we can not force that stance. Meaning it is very unlikely we will ever be able to remain in that stance for any longer period of time. An unreachable goal but a goal none the less, just like the goal of never being hit.

As for other stances, I am terrible with names, or simply not willing to share full disclosure but what I can say is that gong bu as well as boxing footwork both are part of our studies. Horse stance however is something used mostly to control or steal balance and opponent position, not because it may be limited but because I have not had time to train more on it. Sorry for not explaining it all more clearly.

Now your stament "You can only retreat as far as your rear leg" I will give this some thought, practise it a bit and see if this is infact the truth for me as well. It is a very interesting idea to test and validate. Of course I mean investigating time efficiency of the idea.

One thought on cat stance and having weight on rear leg works both in offensive and defensive movement. Your front leg can become the rear leg for you, it is just a matter of point of view.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Phobius said:


> As for the stance discussion, I will say this. The view I have been taught in terms of cat stance and WT is that this is a desirable stance. Sort of like the stance that would put us in an ideal situation but the problem is that we can not force that stance. Meaning it is very unlikely we will ever be able to remain in that stance for any longer period of time.


When I get tired I will often move into a cat stance for a short period of time in order to catch my breath. It allows me to fire that front kick a couple of times to keep distance or to disrupt their attack before they have a chance to actually attack. I refer to it as making the opponent reset. The reset delays the attack giving me more time to rest or gives me more time to try to figure out what they were going to try to attack me with.  When I say more time I mean 2 or 3 seconds more.

When I do a cat stance, I do it with the understanding that I can only retreat as far as my rear leg, so I don't stay in it long enough for them to figure out how to get past it. I also know that if I'm in a cat stance then my only real option is to pivot to the side, which is probably why Wing Chun pivots into cat they way they do.  I could be wrong with that analysis for Wing Chun because I'm basing it solely on how I would have to move if I was in cat with my style. If I'm not in position to retreat a great distance backward then that only leaves the sides as a possible option.  I also thought of the environment as it refers to Wing Chun and  I was in a McDonalds, a small chinese alley, or places where there are tables then the fighting tactics and stances will change depending on how much space there is to fight.  I don't see me doing any of my big punches in a McDonalds. I can't see myself risking breaking my hand on things like tables, walls, counters, and other hard items.



Phobius said:


> I am terrible with names, or simply not willing to share full disclosure but what I can say is that gong bu as well as boxing footwork both are part of our studies.


  No problem.  I'm careful of what I say as well. The fact that people are willing to say anything about their martial art style to me ,an outsider, is an honor for me, because I understand that people don't have to share anything about their fighting styles.   I personally try to keep my statements general in the sense that what I am saying can be found in other fighting systems and not just my own.


----------



## geezer

JPinAZ said:


> ...But, while TWC has clear differences in many areas when compared to most other mainstream Ip Man WC ...it is still WC and couldn't simply be made up by GM WC, even if the story of it's origin is questionable...



Yeah, I have no doubt he had contact with practitioners of other lineages and may have borrowed freely. Other things, like some of his flashy Bart Cham Do movements do appear to be of his own invention. Mostly what was _made up_ were his claims to have the only true, authentic WC.

Actually, my point was more directed at _Hanzou_ regarding the lack of any kind of testing like you have in sport martial arts. Without that pressure and "natural selection" process TMA do not adapt, integrate and evolve the same way sport MAs do.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> I just checked and it still plays.  I haven't taken it down yet.


I think it's blocked by the web filters since I haven't left work yet. Please leave it up for a while and I'll check it out when I get home.

Wow, I can still get back in to edit this almost an hour later!?! ...Anyway, I just got home and was able to view your clip. Very convincing response to that shoot attempt. Thanks for providing the video.


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> Both. But there is a subtle but significant difference in the claims of these two self promoting narcissists:
> 
> _William_ _Cheung_ took what he got from Grandmaster Yip, used it to invent an altered system, and then claimed it is actually the only true and authentic system and thus _is better than everybody else's._
> 
> _Leung Ting_ just claims to have understood Yip Man's final perspective best, and to be smarter and more talented than everybody else, so his _admittedly_ altered and trademarked system_ is better than everybody else's.
> _
> In this sense, I'd have to say that my old sifu, LT was actually being more honest. Regardless, neither of these guys was improving the WC system the way you describe what happened in BJJ.



Thanks for the more detailed information. That falls more in line with what I've read about the squabbles between the two major branches of Wing Chun. It also helps explain why Ting's student Boztepe and Cheung had that hilarious brawl in the 1980s. 

And it also helps explain why guys like Boztepe and Guiterrez created anti-grappling instead of simply cross training in a grappling style. As you said, what they created really shouldn't be considered an improvement.



> The BJJ evolution you describe, like the evolution of other competitive sports was the result of new techniques being introduced from a variety of sources and being tested by many competitors in competition and practice. I see no evidence of that kind of scientific testing and development in most TMA. This bothers me.



It bothers me as well. It's one of the main reasons I left karate and began practicing Judo all those years ago. Karate has some interesting concepts, but where do you ever see them being fully applied? You never see a karateka reverse punch someone in the gut so hard that their insides are damaged, but we're led to believe that that reverse punch is the most destructive punch in the world. It's very similar to the one-inch punch, which frankly amounts to a parlor trick.

In Judo, and consequently Bjj, the concept has to work, or nothing else works. If the concept behind Uchi Mata is wrong, no one is going to get thrown by Uchi Mata. How do we know that the concept behind Uchi Mata works? Because we can throw people with Uchi Mata. As you said, it's science pure and simple.


----------



## JPinAZ

Hanzou said:


> ..And it also helps explain why guys like Boztepe and Guiterrez created anti-grappling instead of simply cross training in a grappling style. As you said, what they created really shouldn't be considered an improvement...



This is a good point. While I dislike the term 'anit-grappling', there is a difference between WC's answers to grappling and just cross training in a grappling style. Admittedly, a lot of the 'anti-grappling' clips out there are admittedly pretty unrealistic against unrealistic grappling attempts, but this isn't all there is to the WC system. WC's ideas is to 'negate' grappling attempts/range from happening, allowing the WC practitioner to still use all their tools with COG & self centerline intact. Call it counter-grappling or not-grappling if you like, the term doesn't matter as much. In my system a lot of our kiu sau and chi sau methods give some pretty good answers to take downs wrestling & grabbing/grip work.

The idea of just cross training in a grappling art is and option, but IMO is counter to WC principle as it is agreeing to enter into using grappling methods willingly against grappling attempts (basically, grappling), which is a step in the wrong direction for a WC practitioner and counter to WC principle and body methods.

Of course, there is the caveat that it doesn't always work out the way you'd like!  So, you do need a good idea & experience for what good grapplers/wrestlers do as well as good training time against them (not just your WC buddy's 'playing the role' of a grappler). In my experience, you don't necessarily need to commit time to becoming a good grappler yourself to deal with grapplers - WC does have the answers. But you do have to put in realistic raining time before it's going to work for you - like anything else!


----------



## Jake104

JPinAZ said:


> This is a good point. While I dislike the term 'anit-grappling', there is a difference between WC's answers to grappling and just cross training in a grappling style. Admittedly, a lot of the 'anti-grappling' clips out there are admittedly pretty unrealistic against unrealistic grappling attempts, but this isn't all there is to the WC system. WC's ideas is to 'negate' grappling attempts/range from happening, allowing the WC practitioner to still use all their tools with COG & self centerline intact. Call it counter-grappling or not-grappling if you like, the term doesn't matter as much. In my system a lot of our kiu sau and chi sau methods give some pretty good answers to take downs wrestling & grabbing/grip work.
> 
> The idea of just cross training in a grappling art is and option, but IMO is counter to WC principle as it is agreeing to enter into using grappling methods willingly against grappling attempts (basically, grappling), which is a step in the wrong direction for a WC practitioner and counter to WC principle and body methods.
> 
> Of course, there is the caveat that it doesn't always work out the way you'd like!  So, you do need a good idea & experience for what good grapplers/wrestlers do as well as good training time against them (not just your WC buddy's 'playing the role' of a grappler). In my experience, you don't necessarily need to commit time to becoming a good grappler yourself to deal with grapplers - WC does have the answers. But you do have to put in realistic raining time before it's going to work for you - like anything else!


Good post! I was going to go into a long post, but you pretty much covered it. Lately haven't been in the mood. I'll stick to my nursery rhymes and pointless video post for now..


----------



## Jake104

JowGaWolf said:


> When I get tired I will often move into a cat stance for a short period of time in order to catch my breath. It allows me to fire that front kick a couple of times to keep distance or to disrupt their attack before they have a chance to actually attack. I refer to it as making the opponent reset. The reset delays the attack giving me more time to rest or gives me more time to try to figure out what they were going to try to attack me with.  When I say more time I mean 2 or 3 seconds more.
> 
> When I do a cat stance, I do it with the understanding that I can only retreat as far as my rear leg, so I don't stay in it long enough for them to figure out how to get past it. I also know that if I'm in a cat stance then my only real option is to pivot to the side, which is probably why Wing Chun pivots into cat they way they do.  I could be wrong with that analysis for Wing Chun because I'm basing it solely on how I would have to move if I was in cat with my style. If I'm not in position to retreat a great distance backward then that only leaves the sides as a possible option.  I also thought of the environment as it refers to Wing Chun and  I was in a McDonalds, a small chinese alley, or places where there are tables then the fighting tactics and stances will change depending on how much space there is to fight.  I don't see me doing any of my big punches in a McDonalds. I can't see myself risking breaking my hand on things like tables, walls, counters, and other hard items.
> 
> No problem.  I'm careful of what I say as well. The fact that people are willing to say anything about their martial art style to me ,an outsider, is an honor for me, because I understand that people don't have to share anything about their fighting styles.   I personally try to keep my statements general in the sense that what I am saying can be found in other fighting systems and not just my own.


I like that you actually post videos and it's not just talk.. It's interesting. Thanks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Actually, my point was more directed at _Hanzou_ regarding the lack of any kind of testing like you have in sport martial arts. Without that pressure and "natural selection" process TMA do not adapt, integrate and evolve the same way sport MAs do.


  I'm only responding to the testing part.  I agree that without the pressure of having to fight other styles that any fighting style, not just TMAs will not be able to adjust to the opponents fighting style.  Boxing is the same way, they only box against boxers so there shouldn't be any assumptions that a professional boxer will know what to do or how to react when someone starts kicking or grappling.  This is why I say it's not just a TMA thing.   The only thing I really disagree is that the process is a "testing" process.  When I spar against people I'm not "testing" my skills. Instead I'm seeking a deeper understanding of my fighting system and how the techniques should be applied when fighting someone who uses a different system.

It doesn't matter how skill a fighter is. If he/she picks the wrong technique to address the situation then he will either struggle or fail. I may be the only one on this but I gain a better understanding of my system when I'm not fighting someone from my system.  This is the benefit that MMA has over TMA experience.  This is also why I like Lei tai tournaments over some of the other tournaments where people from the same style fight each other.  I think TMA's do a disservice to their fighting systems when they only fight against the same style, especially in a world where MMA fighters have the opportunity to see a variety of attacks. 



geezer said:


> Very convincing response to that shoot attempt. Thanks for providing the video.


  Thanks.


----------



## geezer

JPinAZ said:


> ...The idea of just cross training in a grappling art is and option, but IMO is counter to WC principle as it is agreeing to enter into using grappling methods willingly against grappling attempts (basically, grappling), which is a step in the wrong direction for a WC practitioner and counter to WC principle and body methods.



On the other hand, when you get comfortable with grappling basics, you might find that they really complement your WC, and in many ways involve common combative concepts. My involvement with the *DTE* guys like Jake constantly reminds me of this fact.



JPinAZ said:


> ....you do have to put in realistic *raining time* before it's going to work for you - like anything else!



Freudian slip JP??? About the time you posted this I looked out the window and it was pouring here and looked _really _nasty over toward Mesa and the East Valley!


----------



## JowGaWolf

JPinAZ said:


> The idea of just cross training in a grappling art is and option, but IMO is counter to WC principle as it is agreeing to enter into using grappling methods willingly against grappling attempts (basically, grappling), which is a step in the wrong direction for a WC practitioner and counter to WC principle and body methods.


  I have the same perspective when approaching grappling.  I don't want to throw BJJ grappling into the fighting system that I study, because that will just result in me doing BJJ.  The Grappling techniques that I use have to be so that I can follow up with something that belongs to my system of fighting. 

BJJ does shoots and take downs with the intent of taking the fight on the ground and this wouldn't benefit Wing Chun.  Wing Chun has to execute grabbling techniques in a way that allows the practitioner to follow up with some Wing Chun punches and techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Jake104 said:


> I like that you actually post videos and it's not just talk.. It's interesting. Thanks.


  Thanks.  Hopefully it will help others to look deeper into some of the techniques within their fighting system.


----------



## yak sao

Hanzou said:


> Thanks for the more detailed information. That falls more in line with what I've read about the squabbles between the two major branches of Wing Chun. It also helps explain why Ting's student Boztepe and Cheung had that hilarious brawl in the 1980s.



I trained with Emin for many years. The anti-grappling he developed came from his years of Turkish wrestling.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I trained with Emin for many years. The anti-grappling he developed came from his years of Turkish wrestling.



Yeah, what was his Turkish training partner's name... _Reza _or something? A bona fide champion I heard. Anyway Emin is amazing. People forget that he was barely more than a kid when he beat up Cheung.


----------



## Hanzou

yak sao said:


> I trained with Emin for many years. The anti-grappling he developed came from his years of Turkish wrestling.



You mean this Turkish wrestling;








The guy in the OP vid of this thread said plainly that the origins of Wing Tsun anti-grappling come from Wing Chun itself, not an outside style. I also find it odd that you believe that it came from Turkish Wrestling when the basis of it is striking your way out of grappling.


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> You mean this Turkish wrestling;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy in the OP vid of this thread said plainly that the origins of Wing Tsun anti-grappling come from Wing Chun itself, not an outside style. I also find it odd that you believe that it came from Turkish Wrestling when the basis of it is striking your way out of grappling.



Good points. The first, that the EWTO anti-grappling program is derived exclusively from WT roots and not from any other sources is_ pure marketing,_ consistent with the oft repeated claim that WT is an entirely complete art that addresses _all _ranges and situations. Ha! I wonder how it would work against my brother who recently won a national championship in parma long range target shooting? Try chain punching against a guy who can drop you with one shot at 600 yards! 

Second, at the time of this bout, Emin's grappling skills were seriously underdeveloped. I know this from a personal encounter with him. Still he was a _very _formidable fighter (something I never ever was). At any rate, I believe the William Cheung encounter was one factor that lead him to focus on upping his ground game. The emerging dominance of the Gracies and their BJJ in the late 80's and 90's was another.

At any rate, the WT marketing line remained the same. That doesn't mean that Emin limited himself to that kind of thinking. I do not know how grappling was taught after he broke away and formed EBMAS. Better ask Yak about that.

BTW Turkish wrestling is a bit ...er _...different _than any of the grappling arts more familiar here in the west. They use a lot of oil and seem to reach inside each other's pants a lot. Not judging. Just saying that it might not translate so well to MMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Good points. The first, that the EWTO anti-grappling program is derived exclusively from WT roots and not from any other sources is_ pure marketing,_ consistent with the oft repeated claim that WT is an entirely complete art that addresses _all _ranges and situations. Ha! I wonder how it would work against my brother who recently won a national championship in parma long range target shooting? Try chain punching against a guy who can drop you with one shot at 600 yards!
> 
> Second, at the time of this bout, Emin's grappling skills were seriously underdeveloped. I know this from a personal encounter with him. Still he was a _very _formidable fighter (something I never ever was). At any rate, I believe the William Cheung encounter was one factor that lead him to focus on upping his ground game. The emerging dominance of the Gracies and their BJJ in the late 80's and 90's was another.
> 
> At any rate, the WT marketing line remained the same. That doesn't mean that Emin limited himself to that kind of thinking. I do not know how grappling was taught after he broke away and formed EBMAS. Better ask Yak about that.
> 
> BTW Turkish wrestling is a bit ...er _...different _than any of the grappling arts more familiar here in the west. They use a lot of oil and seem to reach inside each other's pants a lot. Not judging. Just saying that it might not translate so well to MMA.



I had to really look this one up I can honestly say that I learned something new today.  CNN actually did a report on it. I looked it up to see what they were grabbing when reaching inside of each others pants.  I'm going to agree with you on not translating well in MMA or for any sport where punching is allowed.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> _Leung Ting_ just claims to have understood Yip Man's final perspective best, and to be smarter and more talented than everybody else, so his _admittedly_ altered and trademarked system_ is better than everybody else's._



Even if LT did get everything directly from YM, many of his ideas have much more in common with what is found on the mainland and from YM's earliest HK students, and very little, if anything, in common with WSL's thinking, for example. 

WSL never claimed to have received secret or special knowledge. He always just said he taught what he learned from YM. So, obviously there was a big change (simplification) somewhere in the middle, which in my opinion was a massive improvement to the system.

Now, for LT to have returned to ideas that were there and then not there, it stands to reason that he must have learned from someone else who held those ideas, or YM thought him not intelligent or talented enough to learn his later ideas, and so taught him the old, common way. The latter, I find not so likely.

I believe that fighters are born, not made. Either you have the fighter element to you or you don't. Looking at some footage of LT, I'd say he is not a born fighter. So, even if he did learn his stuff from YM, which is debatable, he apparently wasn't given YM's serious fighting philosophy because he wasn't up to it. But I find it highly unlikely YM would go backward like that. From what I understand, he wasn't the type to waste his time with people who couldn't get it.

As for Emin, I definitely see some born fighter qualities in him. It's just a shame he's invested many years of his life to this system of WT and can't easily start over. I think he's held back by some not so great ideas and has been in a position where it'd be very disadvantageous to his reputation to question, explore, and possibly change. But then again, if you're a born fighter, even some less intelligent ideas can some times be made to work for you. In all situations, it really matters how skilled your opponent is.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...Now, for LT to have returned to ideas that were there and then not there, it stands to reason that he must have learned from someone else who held those ideas, or YM thought him not intelligent or talented enough to learn his later ideas, and so taught him the old, common way. The latter, I find not so likely...



LFJ this is pure speculation. Just because WSL was taught a simpler, more fighting focused approach that you happen to like, doesn't mean that the other ideas were "there, then not there", or that GM yip didn't shift his emphasis towards softer, more yielding techniques in his later years.

All that we can know for certain is that during the decades GM Yip taught in Hong Kong he changed his teaching emphasis periodically and different students took away different approaches to the art. Some versions may be more appealing to you than others, but regardless of what certain individuals maintain, _it's all Wing Chun_.

People are free to pick and choose what they like, but judge each version on it's actual merits not on speculative stories. Goodness knows, we've heard enough of those already.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

geezer said:


> BTW Turkish wrestling is a bit ...er _...different _than any of the grappling arts more familiar here in the west. They use a lot of oil and seem to reach inside each other's pants a lot. Not judging. Just saying that it might not translate so well to MMA.





JowGaWolf said:


> I had to really look this one up I can honestly say that I learned something new today.  CNN actually did a report on it. I looked it up to see what they were grabbing when reaching inside of each others pants.  I'm going to agree with you on not translating well in MMA or for any sport where punching is allowed.



Rules and Customs | Turkish Wrestling



> How a Winner is Decided
> 
> The essential pin in Yağlı Gűreş is similar to that in Greco-Roman wrestling (which, incidentally, is neither Greek nor Roman, but a modern European adaptation. Except for covering their nakedness with a kispet – which is an act of male modesty commanded by Mohammed – the Turks claim that theirs is closest to the classic Greek style). The first wrestler whose “umbilicus is exposed to heaven” loses the match. Holding of the shoulders to the ground for a period of time is not an element in the pin.
> 
> There are alternatives to this basic pin which also constitute a victory:
> 
> (1) The “crush.” A fighter may maneuver his opponent onto his stomach and then trap him by sprawling on top. If he can keep him down with his face buried in the grass he can then turn his exhausted opponent with a half-nelson for a pin. This is a dangerous move, and the referee monitors closely to see that the bottom man is not suffocated. If the “crusher” is not successful after a given period the referee has them begin again from a standing position.
> 
> (2) Submission. Occasionally the match under a hot summer sun is so long and arduous that one fighter will simply signal his submission to the referee. Pin.
> 
> (3) Since a wrestler is not restricted from placing his hands inside his opponent’s kispet (he may not grab his balls or invade his rectum, however), he can also use the waistband to hold the other man in place. *Occasionally the kispet is yanked so far below his hips that the fighter being held cannot rise without exposing himself. Having lost his trunks he also loses the match.*
> 
> (4) If a fighter is able to lift his opponent entirely off the ground and carry him five paces in any direction, that is a “carrying” pin.
> 
> (5) A running “flip” is sometimes employed, in which the wrestler causes both his opponent and himself to expose their navels during the roll. The loser is the one whose navel is first to be exposed. Unless the initiator of this move is careful, he may find himself the loser even though he was the “flipper.”



First combat sport I've encountered where "pantsing" your opponent is a winning tactic.


----------



## JPinAZ

geezer said:


> On the other hand, when you get comfortable with grappling basics, you might find that they really complement your WC, and in many ways involve common combative concepts. My involvement with the *DTE* guys like Jake constantly reminds me of this fact.



Sure, if it helps someone, more power to them! 
I'd have to see what you are referring too. From my experieince, most 'grappling  answers' are counter to WC body methods and ideas of efficiency as they typically involve compromising range and self centerline/COG. Maybe I'll have to meet up with you and the DTW guys sometime, if it's cool!



geezer said:


> Freudian slip JP??? About the time you posted this I looked out the window and it was pouring here and looked _really _nasty over toward Mesa and the East Valley!



heh, yeah, I don't proof read so well when typing fast. I was out in that stuff last night on my way home from work (work in Tempe, live in Gilbert). The streets were flooding fast - but I just put the G. Cherokee in 4wd and had some fun!


----------



## Jake104

geezer said:


> On the other hand, when you get comfortable with grappling basics, you might find that they really complement your WC, and in many ways involve common combative concepts. My involvement with the *DTE* guys like Jake constantly reminds me of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Freudian slip JP??? About the time you posted this I looked out the window and it was pouring here and looked _really _nasty over toward Mesa and the East Valley!


Thanks for the shot out/ compliment  Steve. I don't think I'm cross training. But what the hell do I know? It wouldn't bother me if I'am secretly being cross trained. I like to think of what I do as progressive WC. But again WTH do I know. I just do as I'm told..


----------



## Jake104

JPinAZ said:


> Sure, if it helps someone, more power to them!
> I'd have to see what you are referring too. *From my experieince, most 'grappling  answers' are counter to WC body methods and ideas of efficiency as they typically involve compromising range and self centerline/COG. Maybe I'll have to meet up with you and the DTW guys sometime, if it's cool!*


I'm game for pretty much whenever Jonathan. It would be fun. I have a pretty flexible schedule.LMK..

I learned quit a bit from my time with Eric and I give him credit for helping me dial in certain things. He definitely improved my overall game. So I'll always have respect for HFY ...Same goes for my current DTE instructors. They are refining me more and more and I feel like as a Martial artist they're taking it to the next level. For me it's always been the proof has to be in the pudding.

By the way, I agree with everything you just said in the above.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> LFJ this is pure speculation. Just because WSL was taught a simpler, more fighting focused approach that you happen to like, doesn't mean that the other ideas were "there, then not there",



So, you think WSL made the changes himself? He always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM, and since he wasn't a businessman trying to establish a global association, trademark his brand, and make a name for himself, like some guys we know, I see no reason for him to not be forthright. If he taught what he learned from YM, then that _does_ mean many ideas were there, then not there. YM's approach evolved into a simpler, more direct, and efficient system up to then.



> or that GM yip didn't shift his emphasis towards softer, more yielding techniques in his later years.



The thing is, many of those ideas already existed in mainland versions of WC, and YM apparently discarded them in favor of more efficient methods. I see no reason to wish to revert.



> All that we can know for certain is that during the decades GM Yip taught in Hong Kong he changed his teaching emphasis periodically and different students took away different approaches to the art. Some versions may be more appealing to you than others, but regardless of what certain individuals maintain, _it's all Wing Chun_.



Or... we could look at the fact that most students are at least visually very similar in SNT and CK, but diverge wildly when it comes to BJ or the weapon forms. I think that is a clear indicator that not everyone completed the entire system and took it upon themselves to fill in their gaps. I don't think one man could have, or would have taught so many different versions of the same system, especially when they are at times contradictory. But if you prefer the one-big-family view and group hugs and all, that's up to you. I just find it very hard to believe.



> People are free to pick and choose what they like, but judge each version on it's actual merits not on speculative stories. Goodness knows, we've heard enough of those already.



I've done quite a bit of that in recent threads, I think. Any speculation on my part would be based on the merits of each, plus timelines and so on. I really can't imagine a version of VT taught to WSL turning into the WT that LT teaches.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> So, you think WSL made the changes himself? He always said he taught exactly what he learned from YM,



That is _not_ what I said. My point was that GM Yip probably taught WSL according to his particular abilities and inclinations. And, is it likely that WSL gradually developed his own "flavor" over the years after training with GM Yip? Of course. Every great practitioner leaves their mark on the system. It would be impossible not to. Only the most mediocre of practitioners try to do exactly as instructed without adapting, adjusting and evolving. And even then _change happens!
_


LFJ said:


> YM's approach evolved into a simpler, more direct, and efficient system up to then.



I agree. GM Yip's WC as taught in Hong Kong is certainly more streamlined than the old mainland lineages, just as mainland WC is, in turn, more streamlined and direct than some of the other southern short bridge systems it may share a history with. Like you, I see this as a generally positive trend and one of the appealing things about the Yip Man lineage. An example comparing mainland to Hong Kong WC would be the streamlining of the Mook Yang Jong form from the old versions which had around 140 or more movements to the 108 movements of the Hong Kong version at the time WSL trained.



LFJ said:


> The thing is, many of those ideas already existed in mainland versions of WC, and YM apparently discarded them in favor of more efficient methods. I see no reason to wish to revert.



Whether or not _you _see the reason, doesn't mean it may not have happened. Consider the above mentioned reduction of the Jong form to 108 movements. At the end of his career, GM Yip expanded the form slightly to include 116 movements, as shown in the 1981 book _116 Wing Tsun Dummy Techniques as Demonstrated by Yip Man _by Master Yip Chun, with the photo sequence of GM Yip performing the movements. Now why would he shorten the form in mid-career only to expand it again at the end of his life? There are many possibilities, but _the one given in Yip Chun's book_ was that GM Yip later felt that although he had improved the form by editing and streamlining it down to the classic lucky Buudhist number of 108, he later felt that he had gone a bit too far and had left out a couple of useful movements. So... _he put them back in.
_
Creative people such as authors, artists, scholars, and yes, even _martial artists,_ often tinker with their creations, editing and revising, for better or worse, for their entire lives. Personally, I would have to put GM Yip in this creative category.



LFJ said:


> Or... we could look at the fact that most students are at least visually very similar in SNT and CK, but diverge wildly when it comes to BJ or the weapon forms. I think that is a clear indicator that not everyone completed the entire system and took it upon themselves to fill in their gaps. I don't think one man could have, or would have taught so many different versions of the same system, especially when they are at times contradictory.



_Yes_, IMO you are correct. On the one hand, it is a demonstrable fact (which you yourself have pointed out) that GM Yip changed the WC system and how he taught it during his lifetime. On the other hand, it is also a fact that many, perhaps most of the students GM Yip taught did not receive the entire system. Some filled in the gaps learning from others, other lineages, or even other similar styles. Some of these people were open and honest about making changes in the system. However, others resorted to teaching totally fabricated movements and making fraudulent claims. However_ this forum does not allow "fraud busting"_ so I'm not going there.



LFJ said:


> I really can't imagine a version of VT taught to WSL turning into the WT that LT teaches



That's OK, LFJ. Imagination is a very personal thing. Some people simply can't imagine early hominids evolving into homo sapiens, or that the universe is expanding, regardless of what science tells us. Although a skeptic by nature, I try to keep my imagination open to a variety of possibilities...



LFJ said:


> But if you prefer the one-big-family view and group hugs and all, that's up to you.



Yep. Time for that group hug, buddy!!!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> An example comparing mainland to Hong Kong WC would be the streamlining of the Mook Yang Jong form from the old versions which had around 140 or more movements to the 108 movements of the Hong Kong version at the time WSL trained.



When I said the system was simplified I wasn't referring to the number of movements in forms or the structure of the curriculum. I meant more along the lines of the fighting strategy becoming simpler, more direct, and more efficient, and the way the forms are performed has been made to match that thinking. A lot of impractical nonsense was stripped away. 

For example, the book you mentioned shows Yip Chun demonstrating 1:1 applications for the moves. In WSL's version of the dummy form there is no 1:1 application. The dummy doesn't represent human limbs and the movements are abstract training tools. It's incorrect to extract the actions as-is and show them applied against hypothetical attacks, because that's not what they're for.

The abstract interpretation of the forms is quite genius, and WSL never said they were his innovations; which I would take credit for if they were mine. He learned it from YM.



> At the end of his career, GM Yip expanded the form slightly to include 116 movements, as shown in the 1981 book _116 Wing Tsun Dummy Techniques as Demonstrated by Yip Man _by Master Yip Chun, with the photo sequence of GM Yip performing the movements.



I haven't read that book, but I've seen descriptions and a few photos, and it raises many questions... Like, why YC would need to consult with LT in order to write the book. Maybe he didn't learn the whole form from his dad. And why, if this was YC's book on YM's dummy form, did LT make sure the translation used his trademarked Wing Tsun spelling, representing his system, in the title and throughout when neither YM nor YC ever used that spelling? It seems there were some ulterior motives involved there.



> Now why would he shorten the form in mid-career only to expand it again at the end of his life? There are many possibilities, but _the one given in Yip Chun's book_ was that GM Yip later felt that although he had improved the form by editing and streamlining it down to the classic lucky Buudhist number of 108, he later felt that he had gone a bit too far and had left out a couple of useful movements. So... _he put them back in._



Well, I'm not so sure I'm buying that he did. Many sifus point to the video of YM doing the dummy form as support for their version of the form. Which I think is quite ridiculous. The video cuts many times, YM appears to hesitate often, and even stops to talk to the camera. There is no audio, so we don't know what was said. How do we know he was not just showing how people used to do the form and then stopping to explain why he took those moves out, or that he was not just freestyling some moves as an example? In any case, it's ridiculous to base your form on videos and pictures of a sickly old man, or a book by guys who had little training with him.

Besides, the extra moves are redundant, like the three lower _bong-sau_s. That action gets enough training throughout the form, and doing it back and forth like that is useless. That's why I presume it was taken out. The rest are impractical application-based ideas that are just slight variations of what's already in there. Again, redundant and useless. No need to be put back in.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Well, I'm not so sure I'm buying that he did. Many sifus point to the video of YM doing the dummy form as support for their version of the form. Which I think is quite ridiculous. The video cuts many times, YM appears to hesitate often, and even stops to talk to the camera. There is no audio, so we don't know what was said. How do we know he was not just showing how people used to do the form and then stopping to explain why he took those moves out, or that he was not just freestyling some moves as an example? In any case, it's ridiculous to base your form on videos and pictures of a sickly old man, or a book by guys who had little training with him.
> 
> Besides, the extra moves are redundant, like the three lower _bong-sau_s. That action gets enough training throughout the form, and doing it back and forth like that is useless. That's why I presume it was taken out. The rest are impractical application-based ideas that are just slight variations of what's already in there. Again, redundant and useless. No need to be put back in.



You mean to say that a very sick man goes out of bed to record the wooden dummy form in a haze and while doing so he decides to show techniques and discuss on how they should not be part of the form? Especially on a mute recording? After all the recording if I remember correctly was done as a last effort to assure the form is kept documented.

No matter extra techniques being there or not, it is still the same training and it all adheres to same principal, so does it matter if you think the extra techniques add no value? Does not make the form any less valid be it 108 or 116 points.

WSL VT or LT WT or whatever else, there is no point in arguing about any of it unless some specific technique/move/concept is brought up for debate. For me personally calling a technique different and no longer valid means you are limiting your own point of view and development. Instead it might just not work for you. (Granted that it stems from WC or the topic would not be suited for this forum)

EDIT: We are soo far off-topic I dont even know how to start getting this back on topic.


----------



## Tez3

Tony Dismukes said:


> First combat sport I've encountered where "pantsing" your opponent is a winning tactic



This was held yesterday, we did think about going over to watch as it's not that far from us but as is usual with Bank holiday weathr it poured it down so we went to watch a film and have a meal out. Shame it could have been a winning experience to take back to the club. Bear in mind this is from the home of catch wrestling, Lancashire.
World Gravy Wrestling


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You mean to say that a very sick man goes out of bed to record the wooden dummy form in a haze and while doing so he decides to show techniques and discuss on how they should not be part of the form? Especially on a mute recording? After all the recording if I remember correctly was done as a last effort to assure the form is kept documented.



If you remember correctly? Oh, I didn't realize you were present at the recording. So, what was he saying? 



> No matter extra techniques being there or not, it is still the same training and it all adheres to same principal, so does it matter if you think the extra techniques add no value? Does not make the form any less valid be it 108 or 116 points.



Numbers don't matter, but the interpretation does. And no, it is not the same training and doesn't adhere to the same principals as WSL learned from YM.


----------



## geezer

Well LFJ, I guess I'm not gonna get that hug .

Your verbal anti-grappling has defeated me. Maybe I should go talk to Steve, Hanzou, Tony, and the other grapplers. They're a huggy bunch... even if it ends in a submission!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

geezer said:


> Well LFJ, I guess I'm not gonna get that hug .
> 
> Your verbal anti-grappling has defeated me. Maybe I should go talk to Steve, Hanzou, Tony, and the other grapplers. They're a huggy bunch... even if it ends in a submission!


Yes ... Come over to the dark side. Combat cuddling with hugs for everyone!


----------



## wtxs

geezer said:


> That is _not_ what I said. My point was that GM Yip probably taught WSL according to his particular abilities and inclinations. And, is it likely that WSL gradually developed his own "flavor" over the years after training with GM Yip? Of course. Every great practitioner leaves their mark on the system. It would be impossible not to. *Only the most mediocre of practitioners try to do exactly as instructed without adapting, adjusting and evolving. And even then change happens!*



You are 100% point on of how WSL might had been instructed.

What you'd said above (bold faced & underlined) applies to majority of MA practiced out there.


----------



## Jake104

geezer said:


> Well LFJ, I guess I'm not gonna get that hug .
> 
> *Your verbal anti-grappling has defeated me.* Maybe I should go talk to Steve, Hanzou, Tony, and the other grapplers. They're a huggy bunch... even if it ends in a submission!


I'm guessing, He has a black belt in that art?


----------



## Hanzou

So much wrong in that opening set up. So much wrong with the entire video overall.

Also he has another vid where he shows how to snap someone's neck in guard, but says not to do it because it's dangerous. One of his students says "but what if we want to?"


----------



## geezer

Hanzou said:


> So much wrong in that opening set up. So much wrong with the entire video overall.



Look at the _bright side_. At least this guy realizes that grappling has become a fact of life for the modern martial artist and is trying to learn how to deal with it. On the other hand, apparently he has a ways to go. Seems easier to cross-train with somebody who already has this stuff figured out and tested. But that's just me.

So why am I not studying BJJ or something similar right now? Joint problems (sometimes just walking is getting to be a be-yach) and like, everyone, time constraints.  Still, _Hanzou_ , thanks for the ...er..._cautionary_ message.


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> Look at the _bright side_. At least this guy realizes that grappling has become a fact of life for the modern martial artist and is trying to learn how to deal with it. On the other hand, apparently he has a ways to go. Seems easier to cross-train with somebody who already has this stuff figured out and tested. But that's just me.
> 
> So why am I not studying BJJ or something similar right now? Joint problems (sometimes just walking is getting to be a be-yach) and like, everyone, time constraints.  Still, _Hanzou_ , thanks for the ...er..._cautionary_ message.


Problem I see is that he isn't trying to learn how to deal with it.  He's teaching people how to deal with it.  That's the problem.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Problem I see is that he isn't trying to learn how to deal with it.  He's teaching people how to deal with it.  That's the problem.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yeah training in concepts. Seen people try that before. My martial art works so therefore it will work in this new situation.

Rather than this is the easiest to learn most effective method. Let's just train that.

(On a side not this is where bjj can steer people a bit wrong and you start to see things like rolling knee bars in someone's self defence arsenal. Yes they work but probably more important things to train if you are some kung fu guy who wants take down defence)


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> So much wrong in that opening set up. So much wrong with the entire video overall.
> 
> Also he has another vid where he shows how to snap someone's neck in guard, but says not to do it because it's dangerous. One of his students says "but what if we want to?"



Can opener?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So much wrong in that opening set up. So much wrong with the entire video overall.
> 
> Also he has another vid where he shows how to snap someone's neck in guard, but says not to do it because it's dangerous. One of his students says "but what if we want to?"



I come from a practical fighting system so for us if it sounds too complicated then it probably doesn't work.  The biggest problem is that these techniques are done while the "grappler" isn't struggling.  Struggling changes the entire playing field and the opportunity for a possible trap could close in less than a second.  All of those "opportunities" that he's speaking of for an attack aren't going to exist.  At any point during that struggle on the ground, there may be only 2 or 3 opportunities to strike, with each strike having it's own risks. Imagine trying to do those traps with movement at this level of intensity.





By the way punching someone in the stomach while they are in a crunch position is going to be useless because the stomach muscles are flexed and your striking power is limited.  That's why it takes multiple punches from ground and pound to have an effect.  The punching just isn't going to have the same strength or power as it would if the person is standing up punching.  Those wing chun punches look cool in the demo but in a real fight much of that stuff wouldn't be practical.  The best thing a wing chun practitioner can do in that position is to put his effort into escaping from the grappler's strength.  Wing chun is not a grappling art so no wing chun practitioner should not be trying to out grapple a grappler.


----------



## Hanzou

geezer said:


> Look at the _bright side_. At least this guy realizes that grappling has become a fact of life for the modern martial artist and is trying to learn how to deal with it. On the other hand, apparently he has a ways to go. Seems easier to cross-train with somebody who already has this stuff figured out and tested. But that's just me.



That's a very dim "bright side".

We should keep in mind that this garbage is actually being taught to people.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Can opener?



No it was this;










BTW, your vid above brings back memories. We had some meathead come into our gym and try that crap on one of our female purple belts because he was getting frustrated inside her guard. Needless to say, the purple didn't release the armlock as fast as she usually does.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That's a very dim "bright side".
> 
> We should keep in mind that this garbage is actually being taught to people.


This is what bothers me the most.  I don't mind people teaching but don't teach garbage no matter the fighting system.  If you are going to do a demo then do a live sparring one that represents a realistic attack.  The play that video slowly and then explain what is going on in the mind of the martial artist, what they were thinking or sensing during the struggle.  Once that is done then do a walk through explaining the technique.  Especially if the person is teaching on youtube.  Anything less than that is just going to make it possible for someone to do the technique incorrectly or that doesn't work, and then get hurt because they tried to do something that they didn't understand.

I really hate videos like this because they really don't do justice for TMA's many times applications are applied incorrectly or the wrong application is picked for the situation.  If they were to actually put on sparring gear and have someone come at them with 50% of the force, then they would have a better idea of what techniques should be used in a specific situation.
For example: starting at mark 0:45 No one is going to do a running shoot on you so stop making defense scenarios based on people running at you like that.  If a person runs up on me like that then I'm thinking they have a knife.  There are plenty of videos of attackers with a knife that run directly to people like that.  People who are trying to shoot for the legs don't telegraph like that.





1:12 mark.  When dealing with someone shooting on you, don't punch first then control the head.  Control the head first then punch.  We have seen hundreds of videos professional and street fight where the person who punches the shoot is the one that ends up on the ground.  First stop the shoot from being successful and only after you have done this should you punch.

In the age of street fight video collections from youtube, there is no reason why TMA's should be making unrealistic attack demos that isn't representative of how people really fight.  please make sure that your fighting system is addressing attacks like these





And please stop doing hollywood demos like this.  I would be more impressed if there was a boxer in the video and the demo shows how the Hapkido student defends against the boxer and takes advantage of the boxer's weakness.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


>


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> No it was this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, your vid above brings back memories. We had some meathead come into our gym and try that crap on one of our female purple belts because he was getting frustrated inside her guard. Needless to say, the purple didn't release the armlock as fast as she usually does.



I have subbed a purple with a can opener. I defend with fist in throat or fist in eye socket.  We have a guy who goes for it all the time.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


>


ha ha ha.. someone has a cheap door. Why bother having one if you can do that to it. lol.   Why was he destroying the door?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.. someone has a cheap door. Why bother having one if you can do that to it. lol.   Why was he destroying the door?



He was ticked off that his team lost to Rashad Evan's team.


----------



## Jens




----------



## drop bear

Jens said:


>



That is not evidenced in mma by the way. As soon as your striking becomes ineffective to become open to takedowns.


----------



## JowGaWolf

There are so many things wrong with that video that it's not even worth pointing out.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> There are so many things wrong with that video that it's not even worth pointing out.



Oh come on. Point out at least a couple of things. It'll be fun!


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Oh come on. Point out at least a couple of things. It'll be fun!


 I'll let you have the honor.  Videos like that is why people think kung fu sucks.  There is just way too much trash out there claiming to be kung fu.


----------

