# Grappling takedown - back of head wide open?



## Shakya

Since we know already that it is illegal to strike the back of the head in MMA bouts, and of course in wrestling competitions, does this mean that this is the 'chink in the armor' for grapplers in truly martial contexts?






As the doctor and karate enthusiast in this video explains, strikes to this area of the body can be incredibly dangerous for the receiver (watch from around 7:00).






So what do you think?

Perhaps, during ancient or medieval - more brutal - times, the art of the double leg or single leg takedown was not indulged in so much due to this very reason? - It was incredibly risky if one's partner sprawls successfully?

I look forward to hearing any opinions on this. 

Many thanks.


----------



## Headhunter

What's a truly martial context? No matter who you are a hit to the back of the head is going to hurt


----------



## hoshin1600

there are many vulnerable spots on the human body.  the key would be to capitalize on them and that is not easy nor a "chink"  in any style.  they apply equally to all styles.  the front of the throat is less protected then the back of the head or neck.  does that mean stand up should be avoided more then grappling?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

A few points ...

1) Ideal technique with a shot does not actually leave the back of the neck open. Eyes should be up and the head should be up (compared to the hips). It is true that in the heat of a fight, even good wrestlers will sometimes put their heads down and expose the back of their neck. This could potentially create a valid target._ However_ ...

2) In order to effectively attack the exposed spine of someone who leaves that opening _you first have to stop the takedown_. If you try to elbow the back of the neck while being taken down, it tends not to be effective. For evidence, look to all the MMA/Vale Tudo matches which occurred before the modern rules which banned attacks to the back of the neck.

3) Even if the person shooting leaves the opening and the defender stuffs the takedown, often the position created by the takedown defense doesn't offer a good angle for attacking the neck. Even if it does, the person shooting should either be bailing out or progressing to another attack once their first technique is thwarted. This means the window for attacking the neck may only be a split second.

4) If a grappler shoots for a lower-body takedown in such a way as to expose their spine, and you can stuff the takedown in such a way as to maintain a good base for striking and a good angle of attack, and take advantage of that opening before it vanishes - then yes, striking the back of the neck could potentially be a devastating fight-ender. I wouldn't count on it being an easy solution to pull off.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> 1) Ideal technique with a shot does not actually leave the back of the neck open. Eyes should be up and the head should be up (compared to the hips).


If you are not controlling your opponent's arms when you shot, if your head is

- down, you will get hit behind the head.
- up, you will get pushed on the forehead.

Both are bad.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> 4) If a grappler shoots for a lower-body takedown in such a way as to expose their spine,


If you use

1. both arms to get your opponent's leading leg, you won't have another arm left to deal with your opponent's arms.
2. one arm to get your opponent's leading leg, you will have one free arm to deal with his arms.

IMO, 2 > 1.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> A few points ...
> 
> 1) Ideal technique with a shot does not actually leave the back of the neck open. Eyes should be up and the head should be up (compared to the hips). It is true that in the heat of a fight, even good wrestlers will sometimes put their heads down and expose the back of their neck. This could potentially create a valid target._ However_ ...
> 
> 2) In order to effectively attack the exposed spine of someone who leaves that opening _you first have to stop the takedown_. If you try to elbow the back of the neck while being taken down, it tends not to be effective. For evidence, look to all the MMA/Vale Tudo matches which occurred before the modern rules which banned attacks to the back of the neck.
> 
> 3) Even if the person shooting leaves the opening and the defender stuffs the takedown, often the position created by the takedown defense doesn't offer a good angle for attacking the neck. Even if it does, the person shooting should either be bailing out or progressing to another attack once their first technique is thwarted. This means the window for attacking the neck may only be a split second.
> 
> 4) If a grappler shoots for a lower-body takedown in such a way as to expose their spine, and you can stuff the takedown in such a way as to maintain a good base for striking and a good angle of attack, and take advantage of that opening before it vanishes - then yes, striking the back of the neck could potentially be a devastating fight-ender. I wouldn't count on it being an easy solution to pull off.



Also you are bringing your elbows up. Which is making life a bit easier.


----------



## Shakya

Thanks guys  , really appreciate the thoughtful responses.



Headhunter said:


> What's a truly martial context? No matter who you are a hit to the back of the head is going to hurt


I suppose I mean contexts like duels and such-like - where mortal injury is a recognised potential, and there are no, if very few, rules.



hoshin1600 said:


> the front of the throat is less protected then the back of the head or neck.  does that mean stand up should be avoided more then grappling?


Well, indeed, and therefore many martial arts styles seek to protect against throat strikes - recognising that it is a very vulnerable area. I am not necessarily talking about grappling in a sports context, here, I am talking about in a more martial context, and perhaps why it was not apparently as celebrated as a martial art as it is today - a martial art similar to those used for swords and spears in the past. 

Today, in our more developed societies, human blood-letting, and activities which cause such events, is apparently less common.



Tony Dismukes said:


> 1) Ideal technique with a shot does not actually leave the back of the neck open. Eyes should be up and the head should be up (compared to the hips).


Right,








Tony Dismukes said:


> _you first have to stop the takedown_.


Of course, so let's say one sprawls successfully -it seems that the attacker's head cannot be kept upright:








Tony Dismukes said:


> If you try to elbow the back of the neck while being taken down, it tends not to be effective.


Yes, I've seen that, but what about hammer fist?



Tony Dismukes said:


> before the modern rules which banned attacks to the back of the neck.


Sure - was there a particular reason why they banned it? Was there a casualty?



Tony Dismukes said:


> often the position created by the takedown defense doesn't offer a good angle for attacking the neck.


Perhaps this is a matter of technique, however? Because in most grappling training scenarios no one is ever intending to strike to the back of the neck, and therefore no such positioning is sought?



Tony Dismukes said:


> Even if it does, the person shooting should either be bailing out or progressing to another attack once their first technique is thwarted. This means the window for attacking the neck may only be a split second.


Maybe. But what if people trained specifically for attacking that vulnerable spot when someone shoots for the takedown? I mean, in older, more brutal times, maybe the double leg takedown was considered as standing with legs akimbo waiting for a nut-shot, because if successfully sprawled, they were a gonner? 

I am not meaning to disparage the art here, I just can't understand why grappling was popular in the more ancient past, and yet today it seems to be even more celebrated. At the end of the day, whatever works in combat is appropriated - no matter with or without weapons, it is just the way evolution works, and I cannot believe that during all the brutal fighting that occurred in varying martial contexts that these techniques and methodologies were not already understood and thoroughly tested.

Thanks again everyone.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Shakya said:


> Thanks guys  , really appreciate the thoughtful responses.
> 
> 
> I suppose I mean contexts like duels and such-like - where mortal injury is a recognised potential, and there are no, if very few, rules.
> 
> 
> Well, indeed, and therefore many martial arts styles seek to protect against throat strikes - recognising that it is a very vulnerable area. I am not necessarily talking about grappling in a sports context, here, I am talking about in a more martial context, and perhaps why it was not apparently as celebrated as a martial art as it is today - a martial art similar to those used for swords and spears in the past.
> 
> Today, in our more developed societies, human blood-letting, and activities which cause such events, is apparently less common.
> 
> 
> Right,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, so let's say one sprawls successfully -it seems that the attacker's head cannot be kept upright:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've seen that, but what about hammer fist?
> 
> 
> Sure - was there a particular reason why they banned it? Was there a casualty?
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is a matter of technique, however? Because in most grappling training scenarios no one is ever intending to strike to the back of the neck, and therefore no such positioning is sought?
> 
> 
> Maybe. But what if people trained specifically for attacking that vulnerable spot when someone shoots for the takedown? I mean, in older, more brutal times, maybe the double leg takedown was considered as standing with legs akimbo waiting for a nut-shot, because if successfully sprawled, they were a gonner?
> 
> I am not meaning to disparage the art here, I just can't understand why grappling was popular in the more ancient past, and yet today it seems to be even more celebrated. At the end of the day, whatever works in combat is appropriated - no matter with or without weapons, it is just the way evolution works, and I cannot believe that during all the brutal fighting that occurred in varying martial contexts that these techniques and methodologies were not already understood and thoroughly tested.
> 
> Thanks again everyone.


So do you have an issue where you think double leg takedown was popular in ancient times and you dont get why, or do you think it wasnt popular and are trying to figure out why that changed?


----------



## Shakya

kempodisciple said:


> So do you have an issue where you think double leg takedown was popular in ancient times and you dont get why, or do you think it wasnt popular and are trying to figure out why that changed?


The second one, sort of. I think it was popular, but I don't get why it hasn't (until recent decades) apparently been celebrated as much as punching, kicking, and sweeping in thoroughly tested and developed fighting systems. It's not like their duelling rules were more strict 1000 years, ago, for example, let alone 2000 or 3000 years ago. And they had a vast array of fighting insights, and thus cunning techniques, which were just as ingenious and deep as those seemingly rediscovered in grappling today.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Shakya said:


> The second one, sort of. I think it was popular, but I don't get why it hasn't (until recent decades) apparently been celebrated as much as punching, kicking, and sweeping in thoroughly tested and developed fighting systems. It's not like their duelling rules were more strict 1000 years, ago, for example, let alone 2000 or 3000 years ago. And they had a vast array of fighting insights, and thus cunning techniques, which were just as ingenious and deep as those seemingly rediscovered in grappling today.


What makes you think takedowns, or grappling in general, wasn't popular way back when? Besides pankration, which i believe includes grappling, i don't think we know much about what techniques were popular in 'ancient times'


----------



## drop bear

Shakya said:


> Of course, so let's say one sprawls successfully -it seems that the attacker's head cannot be kept upright:



Ok here it gets complicated. Unlike the demos the guy doing the grapple doesn't just stop. But continues to drive forward. The throw is in practice a combination of throws.

So you shots are generally this arm flailing getting pushed backwards and if you get taken down you are going to know what a downward elbow looks like.

So it is more like trying to swing down elbows in the middle of this.


----------



## Shakya

kempodisciple said:


> What makes you think takedowns, or grappling in general, wasn't popular way back when?





Shakya said:


> I think it was popular, but I don't get why it hasn't (until recent decades) apparently been celebrated as much as punching, kicking, and sweeping in thoroughly tested and developed fighting systems.


When the Gracies began promoting their art, for example, they defeated so many other fighters from well-established fighting systems - practitioners who had apparently been honing punches, kicks, and sweeps, rather than sprawling against takedowns, it seems. 

So I mean those established fighting systems didn't seem to be as concerned about the potential of double leg takedowns as much as defending against striking and sweeps, for example. I think there must be a reason for that - and perhaps it is because of strikes to back of head? In the video in my first post, for example, the doctor talks about a karate kata that spins a person around and then strikes to the back of the head. So such attacks were known to the Japanese fighters, and I am sure to fighters everywhere else, also.

Such a kata would be deemed pointless to sport MMA fighters, however. To medieval duellists and those who wished not to be robbed, murdered, or raped by bandits, however, it could have been invaluable.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Shakya said:


> When the Gracies began promoting their art, for example, they defeated so many other fighters from well-established fighting systems - practitioners who had apparently been honing punches, kicks, and sweeps, rather than sprawling against takedowns, it seems.
> 
> So I mean those established fighting systems didn't seem to be as concerned about the potential of double leg takedowns as much as defending against striking and sweeps, for example. I think there must be a reason for that - and perhaps it is because of strikes to back of head? In the video in my first post, for example, the doctor talks about a karate kata that spins a person around and then strikes to the back of the head. So such attacks were known to the Japanese fighters, and I am sure to fighters everywhere else, also.
> 
> Such a kata would be deemed pointless to sport MMA fighters, however. To medieval duellists and those who wished not to be robbed, murdered, or raped by bandits, however, it could have been invaluable.


Remember that the original ufc, where the gracies proved the effectiveness of bjj, had very different rules than today. It wasn't split into rounds, and basically nothing was off limits, so it wasn't a rule set thing. 

Also, the 20th century is very different from 'ancient', in terms of when those musical anything goes types of fights might have existed. 

I could go through the history of a couple different arts to explain why grappling wasn't as important/prominent in the mid 20th century, but i don't have an answer for why bjj was the only one that focused as much on groundwork. Perhaps @Tony Dismukes , @Steve or @lklawson can chime in on if that was actually true or why it may/ may not have been the case


----------



## Shakya

drop bear said:


> Ok here it gets complicated. Unlike the demos the guy doing the grapple doesn't just stop. But continues to drive forward. The throw is in practice a combination of throws.
> 
> So you shots are generally this arm flailing getting pushed backwards and if you get taken down you are going to know what a downward elbow looks like.
> 
> So it is more like trying to swing down elbows in the middle of this.


Thanks for the video 

During the long scramble that ensues from 1:00, for example, it seems that there is plenty of opportunity for a hammer fist to the back of the head. Would you agree?


----------



## Shakya

kempodisciple said:


> Remember that the original ufc, where the gracies proved the effectiveness of bjj, had very different rules than today. It wasn't split into rounds, and basically nothing was off limits, so it wasn't a rule set thing.


No, sure. I am not saying it is about the rules, I am thinking it is more likely about medieval or pre-medieval practicalities. The non-bjj practitioners' recent lineages just hadn't been concerned about ground game for some reason, but now it is such a big deal. Therefore I think that some key piece to this jigsaw puzzle must be missing.

Yes, society began to frown more upon human-blood letting and gladiator style events in general, and so traditional martial arts became less relevant to the average civilian who did not intend to go into battle or even manage their own physical conflicts.



kempodisciple said:


> i don't have an answer for why bjj was the only one that focused as much on groundwork. Perhaps @Tony Dismukes , @Steve or @lklawson can chime in on if that was actually true or why it may/ may not have been the case


That would be useful  .

At a guess, I would think that BJJ was developed more for dealing with weaponless untrained street thugs who had 'beef to settle', but wanted to do it without causing a gang war - like break-dancing battles did in NY city in the 60s and 70s (involving U.S. Latinos). But then again, I am no expert on this stuff.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shakya said:


> During the long scramble that ensues from 1:00, for example, it seems that there is plenty of opportunity for a hammer fist to the back of the head. Would you agree?


If your opponent moves in with this kind of momentum, your hammer fist won't be able to have any effect on the back of his head.


----------



## Shakya

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent moves in with this kind of momentum, your hammer fist won't be able to have any effect on the back of his head.


Momentum can be stopped though, right? 

And look at Khabib in these clips (from 1.09 onwards) and think about what could happen if hammer fist to back of head was allowed:






Perhaps he would not launch himself in like that so readily?

And of course, where takedowns fail on the street,  and feuds are deeply personal, and adrenaline is flowing, attacks that don't normally occur in the sporting environment can manifest as if out of thin air, even:






Thanks for help with this.


----------



## pdg

There's a reason takedowns like that aren't recorded as popular.

Basically, anywhere it was popular in 'ancient times' they didn't have the ability to record minor events.

As record keeping is number 7 on the list of symptoms for societal advancement, it means that number 4 (developing the ability to manufacture glass) came first.

As we all know from the SD discussions on this very site, as soon as glass is present it's going to get broken and liberally strewn around on the ground.

So, ground grappling would have fallen out of favour (except in controlled competition environments) just before records were kept - because nobody wants to roll around in broken glass.


----------



## Shakya

pdg said:


> There's a reason takedowns like that aren't recorded as popular.
> 
> Basically, anywhere it was popular in 'ancient times' they didn't have the ability to record minor events.
> 
> As record keeping is number 7 on the list of symptoms for societal advancement, it means that number 4 (developing the ability to manufacture glass) came first.
> 
> As we all know from the SD discussions on this very site, as soon as glass is present it's going to get broken and liberally strewn around on the ground.
> 
> So, ground grappling would have fallen out of favour (except in controlled competition environments) just before records were kept - because nobody wants to roll around in broken glass.


But the lineages themselves would have 'kept record' - through their physical practice, as did the evolution of swords, spears, kicking techniques, yoga postures, and so on... 

In fact, I think that it is even arguable that Vedic yoga was intimately linked with wrestling:



















...and perhaps that connection is returning today more and more?


----------



## drop bear

Shakya said:


> Thanks for the video
> 
> During the long scramble that ensues from 1:00, for example, it seems that there is plenty of opportunity for a hammer fist to the back of the head. Would you agree?
> 
> View attachment 21761



Ok. There is another issue. If you are hitting someone you are not stopping the takedown. So you need to hit from a position that won't land you on your back.

Or you have to basically knock them out with those shots


----------



## Shakya

drop bear said:


> Ok. There is another issue. If you are hitting someone you are not stopping the takedown. So you need to hit from a position that won't land you on your back.
> 
> Or you have to basically knock them out with those shots


Right, yes, that is what I was thinking also - you'd better hope it worked!

The thing is, we can't really test it. We can only rely on street fight videos as and when they arrive, and even then it is only one or two instances.


----------



## Shakya

We do have some footage like this about punches to the back of the head from gloved opponents, however:






With McGregor gaining somewhat of a reputation for such dirty tricks:


----------



## drop bear

Shakya said:


> Right, yes, that is what I was thinking also - you'd better hope it worked!
> 
> The thing is, we can't really test it. We can only rely on street fight videos as and when they arrive, and even then it is only one or two instances.



One fc. You can go buck wild with downward elbows.
Zebaztian Kadestam Knocks Out Agilan Thani In Malaysia - ONE Championship


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> Therefore I think that some key piece to this jigsaw puzzle must be missing.


I am not trying to be mean or trolling here but what's missing is your own understanding of skill, combat and history.
Part of the problem is that you have a pre determined image in your mind of what that jigsaw puzzle is going to look like once you put the pieces together but the actual picture is different than what you think. So your focusing on this one piece of the puzzle thinking it's the key to the entire thing, like it's a corner piece. But it's not.
There are reasons for everything. If I were you I would start with discovering the reasons why things ARE, rather then the reasons why they ARE NOT.


----------



## Shakya

hoshin1600 said:


> I am not trying to be mean or trolling here but what's missing is your own understanding of skill, combat and history.
> Part of the problem is that you have a pre determined image in your mind of what that jigsaw puzzle is going to look like once you put the pieces together


I don't think I have a pre-determined image. That is why I am exploring here. We have 'best fit' theories for things, don't we - perhaps like you have about me.



hoshin1600 said:


> but the actual picture is different than what you think.


Please do explain.



hoshin1600 said:


> So your focusing on this one piece of the puzzle thinking it's the key to the entire thing, like it's a corner piece. But it's not.


Great, I am happy to be educated on this topic. That's why I am here discussing it with you.


----------



## dunc

I don’t know about other country’s styles, but I believe that the double leg wasn’t used much in pre-judo Japan had more to do with weapons and attacks to the face, throat and ears


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> I don’t know about other country’s styles, but I believe that the double leg wasn’t used much in pre-judo Japan had more to do with weapons and attacks to the face, throat and ears



Sumo had a lot of single legs.


----------



## now disabled

dunc said:


> I don’t know about other country’s styles, but I believe that the double leg wasn’t used much in pre-judo Japan had more to do with weapons and attacks to the face, throat and ears




In what respect do you say that regarding weapons?


----------



## dunc

drop bear said:


> Sumo had a lot of single legs.



Yeah but interestingly the jujutsu styles didn’t seem to go there much


----------



## dunc

now disabled said:


> In what respect do you say that regarding weapons?



One of the issues with take downs like double legs is that you’re putting your neck in easy reach of your opponent’s hands without controlling their hands


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> I don't think I have a pre-determined image. That is why I am exploring here. We have 'best fit' theories for things, don't we - perhaps like you have about me.
> 
> 
> Please do explain.
> 
> 
> Great, I am happy to be educated on this topic. That's why I am here discussing it with you.



i dont have a preconceived about you.  im actually still trying to figure out what your questions are.   if i knew what it was you were trying to get answers to i would respond.  you've touched upon a few things but they seem very vague to me so its hard for me to quote your question and have a conversation. 
ive already mentioned that there are a multitude of human week points and none are any more or less vulnerable based on what style you do.


----------



## now disabled

dunc said:


> One of the issues with take downs like double legs is that you’re putting your neck in easy reach of your opponent’s hands without controlling their hands



Yeah ok but what has that got to do with weapons? As I don't think if you were facing a person with a weapon grabbing at the legs may not be the best option ...I assume  your post to pre judo you are meaning when the daisho were still carried?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dunc said:


> One of the issues with take downs like double legs is that you’re putting your neck in easy reach of your opponent’s hands without controlling their hands


The simple solution to that is make sure when you do the takedown, youre wrapping them on the outside of the arms, to control it.


----------



## dunc

kempodisciple said:


> The simple solution to that is make sure when you do the takedown, youre wrapping them on the outside of the arms, to control it.



Do you have examples? I think that’d be quite hard to pull off...



now disabled said:


> Yeah ok but what has that got to do with weapons? As I don't think if you were facing a person with a weapon grabbing at the legs may not be the best option ...I assume  your post to pre judo you are meaning when the daisho were still carried?



Yeah my point was that the old styles of jujutsu didn’t really use these kind of takedowns
In their context weapons were always present / considered and, critically, often not visible

I agree with the posts about the limitations of strikes to the back of the neck against a double leg

But if one can get even a half arsed giullotine attempt against a double leg then an unscrupulous opponent (with some knowledge/training) can cause all sorts of problems if they are armed (you may not see it), allowed to grab the throat/face etc


----------



## now disabled

dunc said:


> Do you have examples? I think that’d be quite hard to pull off...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my point was that the old styles of jujutsu didn’t really use these kind of takedowns
> In their context weapons were always present / considered and, critically, often not visible
> 
> I agree with the posts about the limitations of strikes to the back of the neck against a double leg
> 
> But if one can get even a half arsed giullotine attempt against a double leg then an unscrupulous opponent (with some knowledge/training) can cause all sorts of problems if they are armed (you may not see it), allowed to grab the throat/face etc




I do get you I think on "old styles" 

If your meaning in a "real situation" then all opponents are unscrupulous imo


----------



## hoshin1600

If we are talking about old jujutsu and grappling , has anyone remembered that the samurai and many other cultures wore armor?


----------



## now disabled

hoshin1600 said:


> If we are talking about old jujutsu and grappling , has anyone remembered that the samurai and many other cultures wore armor?



nope lol ...I wasnt assuming he was going that far back but yup if he is then the helmet does have a neck guard lol .... that said I still don't think that going for the double leg take down be the first option or the second if the opponent has a weapon then controling the use of that to me would be the priority or negating the use of said if not controlling


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, Shakya. Hope you enjoy it. 

As to your question, in fighting, something is always open. I don't think it's any more of  chink than any other chink. (My, didn't that sound odd?)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dunc said:


> Do you have examples? I think that’d be quite hard to pull off...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my point was that the old styles of jujutsu didn’t really use these kind of takedowns
> In their context weapons were always present / considered and, critically, often not visible
> 
> I agree with the posts about the limitations of strikes to the back of the neck against a double leg
> 
> But if one can get even a half arsed giullotine attempt against a double leg then an unscrupulous opponent (with some knowledge/training) can cause all sorts of problems if they are armed (you may not see it), allowed to grab the throat/face etc


Not as tough as it sounds, but tougher than a regular double leg...I will try later to find a video describing the technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shakya said:


> I don't think I have a pre-determined image. That is why I am exploring here.


You can get a training partner. Ask him to attack your leg 15 times and see the ratio between your hammer fist can knock on the back of his head vs. he can take you down.

Nothing can be more valuable than your personal test result.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can get a training partner. Ask him to attack your leg 15 times and see the ratio between your hammer fist can knock on the back of his head vs. he can take you down.
> 
> Nothing can be more valuable than your personal test result.


That person has to be trained though. I would get a wrestler or a rugby player personally


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Yeah but interestingly the jujutsu styles didn’t seem to go there much



Gi vs no gi maybe?


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> Perhaps, during ancient or medieval - more brutal - times, the art of the double leg or single leg takedown was not indulged in so much due to this very reason?





now disabled said:


> .I wasnt assuming he was going that far back





now disabled said:


> the helmet does have a neck guard lol .... that said I still don't think that going for the double leg take down be the first option


the medieval knight had armor that weighed about 100 pounds.  the samurai armor could weigh up to 50 pounds.  either way the armor makes you top heavy. not really very conducive for double leg takedowns.


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> I am not necessarily talking about grappling in a sports context, here, I am talking about in a more martial context, and perhaps why it was not apparently as celebrated as a martial art as it is today


what do you mean celebrated?  do we have a national grappling day on the calendar that we can take off work?
i am sort of under the impression that Greco- Roman wrestling has been in the olympic games since 1896 ....thats kind of a big deal.   Sumo is the national sport of Japan.  Greece had a huge wrestling interest and not just in the sport context.  its well known Alexander the great's troops practiced Pankration which was a form of MMA type wrestling and boxing.

wrestling | History, Styles, & Facts
_"No sport is older or more widely distributed than wrestling, often in highly local styles that have persisted to the present day.
Wrestling probably originated in hand-to-hand combat, and in particular as a sportive form of combat substituting the submission of a contestant for his death. Works of art from 3000 BCE depict belt wrestling in Babylonia and Egypt, and the Sumerian Gilgamesh epic has a description of such wrestling. Loose wrestling in India dates to before 1500 BCE. Chinese documents from 700 BCEdescribe loose wrestling, as do Japanese records from the 1st century BCE. The belt wrestling practiced locally in the 20th century by the Swiss, Icelanders, Japanese, and Cossacks differed little from that of the Egyptians in 2500 BCE."

_


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> I just can't understand why grappling was popular in the more ancient past, and yet today it seems to be even more celebrated.


i think that is your impression and i dont think its accurate.  it is popular to watch on TV now but in the past it was part of a young mans education to learn weapons and the arts of self defense,,,you know to actually practice and learn not just stare at a image in a box.



Shakya said:


> and I cannot believe that during all the brutal fighting that occurred in varying martial contexts that these techniques and methodologies were not already understood and thoroughly tested.


  what techniques and methods and who says they were not understood and tested?  are you saying your the first person ever to think about hitting the back of the neck?


----------



## hoshin1600

it would appear to me that the back side of the helmet was very well thought out and specifically designed with the concept of protecting the back of the neck.


----------



## Shakya

hoshin1600 said:


> what techniques and methods and who says they were not understood and tested?  are you saying your the first person ever to think about hitting the back of the neck?


The techniques and methods from wrestling that have been dominating sportive MMA bouts.

Exactly, I cannot believe that in the ancient, more brutal past, they would not have developed techniques that, when a takedown is sprawled successfully, attack the back of the head instead of, say, going for the guillotine, which can be more complicated to pull off.

As we saw in the 'What happens when you fail a takedown' on the street video, people just tend to go for the simplest, most direct shot to the head.

And I think it is worth noting here that I did say in my very first post "if one's partner sprawls successfully" and therefore finds him or herself in a favorable position. It seems that no takedown shot technique is invincible - its counter can be trained and applied, just like any counter to a martial art attack can be.

I think a few posters on this thread are assuming that I am suggesting that a hammerfist could land successfully as they are being taken down by a successful double leg, or single leg takedown. I am not suggesting that.



hoshin1600 said:


> it would appear to me that the back side of the helmet was very well thought out and specifically designed with the concept of protecting the back of the neck.


Indeed, I agree, and yet as others have pointed out, these guys were apparently more concerned about swords, arrows, and clubs, rather than takedowns, as would a JiuJitsu practitioner be if he was on a battlefield full of guys decked out in this gear, I expect.

Please do keep asking questions if you are still not clear about what I am asking. I did my best to lay it out in the first post, but we all have our unique perspectives on the world, and sometimes it requires finer detail to understand one another.

Thanks again, Shakya.


----------



## Shakya

Buka said:


> Welcome to MartialTalk, Shakya. Hope you enjoy it.
> 
> As to your question, in fighting, something is always open. I don't think it's any more of  chink than any other chink. (My, didn't that sound odd?)


Thanks, Buka. I am enjoying it 

Yes, something is always open, and yes no art is better than another, I agree - there is no such thing as 'an absolute Way' (as LaoTzu says in his very first line of _TaoTeChing_).

I believe that all paths lead up the same mountain - it just requires diligent practice - discipline, and testing.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Shakya said:


> The techniques and methods from wrestling that have been dominating sportive MMA bouts.
> 
> Exactly, I cannot believe that in the ancient, more brutal past, they would not have developed techniques that, when a takedown is sprawled successfully, attack the back of the head instead of, say, going for the guillotine, which can be more complicated to pull off.
> 
> As we saw in the 'What happens when you fail a takedown' on the street video, people just tend to go for the simplest, most direct shot to the head.
> 
> And I think it is worth noting here that I did say in my very first post "if one's partner sprawls successfully" and therefore finds him or herself in a favorable position. It seems that no takedown shot technique is invincible - its counter can be trained and applied, just like any counter to a martial art attack can be.
> 
> I think a few posters on this thread are assuming that I am suggesting that a hammerfist could land successfully as they are being taken down by a successful double leg, or single leg takedown. I am not suggesting that.
> 
> 
> Indeed, I agree, and yet as others have pointed out, these guys were apparently more concerned about swords, arrows, and clubs, rather than takedowns, as would a JiuJitsu practitioner be if he was on a battlefield full of guys decked out in this gear, I expect.
> 
> Please do keep asking questions if you are still not clear about what I am asking. I did my best to lay it out in the first post, but we all have our unique perspectives on the world, and sometimes it requires finer detail to understand one another.
> 
> Thanks again, Shakya.


Even if they sprawl correctly, if you have good technique for your takedown that option wont be there. The guillotine is more likely to succeed. So, even if instinct is just to hit it, people that train will look for something that works better than instinct.


----------



## Shakya

kempodisciple said:


> Even if they sprawl correctly, if you have good technique for your takedown that option wont be there. The guillotine is more likely to succeed..


Could you perhaps post a photo or a video and explain why for us?

Here are two videos that support what I am talking about, for example:


----------



## dunc

hoshin1600 said:


> If we are talking about old jujutsu and grappling , has anyone remembered that the samurai and many other cultures wore armor?



Sure, but it’s worth noting that grappling in armour is only part of the grappling curriculum of the old styles. They spent most of their time out of armour (but armed) and the curriculum reflects this


----------



## hoshin1600

Shakya said:


> I cannot believe that in the ancient, more brutal past, they would not have developed techniques that, when a takedown is sprawled successfully, attack the back of the head instead of, say, going for the guillotine, which can be more complicated to pull off.


This is what I was referring to before.  Who says they didn't have techniques?   Your making a presupposition that they didn't and I think this is incorrect.  They are not common now due to rule set but it doesn't take a prodigy to see an opening an strike it.  Hitting the back of the head is not a novel idea, we all know it. That's why there's a rule against it.
I think you'd putting more importance on this then it deserves.


----------



## now disabled

hoshin1600 said:


> the medieval knight had armor that weighed about 100 pounds.  the samurai armor could weigh up to 50 pounds.  either way the armor makes you top heavy. not really very conducive for double leg takedowns.




I would agree totally


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Ok. There is another issue. If you are hitting someone you are not stopping the takedown. So you need to hit from a position that won't land you on your back.
> 
> Or you have to basically knock them out with those shots


Completely agree.  gotta secure a striking structure first.  Which is why it's so risky to try to strike a take down attempt before securing that structure.  Striking will lose all of it's power once someone breaks that structure.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can get a training partner. Ask him to attack your leg 15 times and see the ratio between your hammer fist can knock on the back of his head vs. he can take you down.
> 
> Nothing can be more valuable than your personal test result.


ha ha ha.. not sure who would be crazy enough to be a test subject for that.


----------



## now disabled

Shakya said:


> Indeed, I agree, and yet as others have pointed out, these guys were apparently more concerned about swords, arrows, and clubs, rather than takedowns, as would a JiuJitsu practitioner be if he was on a battlefield full of guys decked out in this gear, I expect.



Yes they would be concerned with what you state and also musket fire as they would have been far in a way more likely to kill than a double leg takedown or a blow to the back of the head whilst doing so. 

The battlefield is a greatly different arena to that of the street, (andalways has been and will be, except in hollywood where it ...well enough said)  so really saying they did or did not have techniques is really a theoretical point. Also it could be added that by the time of the middle Edo period on wards there would be few, if any that had actually fought in battle, oh yes they trained for such (sorta, kinda, maybe) but did and were the tactics or techniques they leaned the same, personally I doubt it as the schools evolved and taught what was in demand or indeed they were permitted to teach (the shogunate -be it right or wrong and opinions do vary- kept a very tight leash of things and what they permitted or did not permit) If you are meaning when they were not all bedecked in armour (and do bear in mind that some- not all- of the armour was ummm ceremonial ) did they learn takedowns etc then I would expect they did and as they came from a background of studying the "arts of warfare" (but dobear in mind that MA was not exactly available to all as it is now) then they would like folks today understand all to well where the weak areas were and are good grief lol there are the lineages that state (again up to one if you believe said or not) fallen soldiers corpses were examined and criminals executed so the human body could be better understood.  Again if logical thought is given they didn't just happen upon "things" I have no doubt there was trial and error and if it didn't work they didn't keep teaching it (or if they did there be dead students of the school and the school would eh not be studied) However that said it was done for a wholly different purpose than today. It was yes self defense but fora different purpose and again not all had access to said training it was kinda reserved for those who were of a certain class, ie Samurai (well sorta depending on the exact time period) and for a reason that was done.  

The context and the time periods have to be taken into account (just as they have today) and even what is taught today as being ancient or what ever word your using .....(a)well is it ?(b) is it the same ?(c) have things been added and taken out or lost or forgotten? (a) no (b)no but has roots there (c) yes, yes and more than likely. Even what are termed modern arts have changed in the last century or so, how something was taught pre WWII can be different from now and even what is taught and how in Japan can be different from what is taught outside Japan lol (again depending on what who and where lol) as it has evolved and taken on what it has needed and will most likely continue to do so (again depending on who,where and why) 

Don't get to hung up on or fooled by some one saying it old style or ancient or the like as things have changed and even within the "old schools" some of what was taught no longer is (and hasn't been for some time) and even if the scrolls they have passed to them it may or may not be understood or taught to the current head or teaching master (he may not have been taught it or given the right to teach it)  or indeed he might not be able to read it !!! (for example take Takeda Sokaku he was illiterate yet he taught Koryu -(ok again depends on what you believe and what you do not)  and it is the predecessor of Aikido (well mostly) and it has had things removed for example the pure ju-jutsu and has taken on the aiki-jujutsu and aiki no jutsu.

I think where you may be getting confused is what you are looking at is modern MMA and modern fighting (be it of any style) and then trying to ask yourself what would they have done way back, that great up to a point, but what goes on in a sports ring isn't the same and what happens in the street well ok it could be life and death certainly but way back when it was lol as if you pissed off someone from the Samurai class or of higher rank in the street then ummm you were gonna die, kick a Samurai in the nuts or piss against his favorite tree and the same outcome,  if not on the spot then fairly soon thereafter lol today it is somewhat different lol. It isn't until fairly modern times that the sport side was cultivated and as stated elsewhere the wonderful TV was invented and the even more wondrous internet that has placed things at the masses fingertips and well some is to put on a spectacle and a show and thereby rules have got to be there else people get hurt or worse killed so what someone from feudal japan might have done andwhat is done is kinda different. Also you are gonna have to seperate what happens in a ring to what happens in the real world (yes there are ways and rules we all have to obey) are two different things and what you may do on the street to defend yourself is and can be wholly different than in a ring and also it is (and always has been) oh so much quicker and more than likely violent and there is unlikely to be a ref or judges around to say nope you can't do that lol


----------



## Shakya

hoshin1600 said:


> This is what I was referring to before.  Who says they didn't have techniques?   Your making a presupposition that they didn't and I think this is incorrect.  They are not common now due to rule set but it doesn't take a prodigy to see an opening an strike it.


It's okay, you were taking my comment out of context - my "I can't believe they didn't..." statement was rhetorical - as in "I assume that they did". Anyway, it doesn't matter, let's move on shall we, haha.


----------



## Shakya

JowGaWolf said:


> Completely agree.  gotta secure a striking structure first.  Which is why it's so risky to try to strike a take down attempt before securing that structure.  Striking will lose all of it's power once someone breaks that structure.


Yes, that structure would be a successful sprawl, for example, no?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Shakya said:


> Sure - was there a particular reason why they banned it? Was there a casualty?


Nah. There was a period when MMA was widely banned and it's commercial future was in doubt. As part of the push to get it accepted, a bunch of rules were put in place to at least create the impression that it wasn't just a "blood sport." Some of the rules were genuine improvements to safety, others were just to make regulators happy. The "no striking the back of the neck" rule was probably adopted from boxing.



Shakya said:


> Perhaps this is a matter of technique, however? Because in most grappling training scenarios no one is ever intending to strike to the back of the neck, and therefore no such positioning is sought?





Shakya said:


> Yes, I've seen that, but what about hammer fist?





Shakya said:


> Yes, that structure would be a successful sprawl, for example, no?



The difficulty is that many of the best structures for stopping the takedown (such as a sprawl) aren't ideal for striking. In the case of a sprawl, the defenders body is mostly horizontal, which isn't good for striking. The attackers head is typically in contact with the sprawler's hip, which isn't a great angle for striking. The sprawler has to keep constant body contact and weight on the attacker to prevent follow up, and that gets in the way of effective striking.

If you want to hit the person shooting in, a hip check probably gives better structure. That's a trickier defense to pull off effectively, though.



hoshin1600 said:


> the medieval knight had armor that weighed about 100 pounds.  the samurai armor could weigh up to 50 pounds.  either way the armor makes you top heavy. not really very conducive for double leg takedowns.


----------



## Buka

hoshin1600 said:


> it would appear to me that the back side of the helmet was very well thought out and specifically designed with the concept of protecting the back of the neck.



Man, I'd really like to get one of those outfits. I think I'd wear it, have my laptop on my lap and talk chop on our forum.


----------



## now disabled

Buka said:


> Man, I'd really like to get one of those outfits. I think I'd wear it, have my laptop on my lap and talk chop on our forum.




Ya might sweat a bit lol and ummm anyone sees ya then they might call the short bus lol ....that said , I am sure that many of us could book a seat .................................Oh btw I'm driving lol which indeed may prove interesting as I'd be yelling your on the wrong side of the road ******* lol , the up side would be .....if we all piled out to confront a roadrage then we would have photo and vid opportunities, and be able to test our respective skills ........however as your wearing the armour your going first lol


----------



## Shakya

Tony Dismukes said:


> The difficulty is that many of the best structures for stopping the takedown (such as a sprawl) aren't ideal for striking. In the case of a sprawl, the defenders body is mostly horizontal, which isn't good for striking. The attackers head is typically in contact with the sprawler's hip, which isn't a great angle for striking. The sprawler has to keep constant body contact and weight on the attacker to prevent follow up, and that gets in the way of effective striking.


But it doesn't seem to be a problem for GSP here, for example:












Tony Dismukes said:


> If you want to hit the person shooting in


I think perhaps we need to be careful here about the way we are describing the situation - as I have re-emphasized on this thread already, the person is no longer "shooting in" - they've been stopped in their tracks - sprawled.

Otherwise it could sound like I am attempting to discuss trying to strike a speeding bullet. In the above video, GSP illustrates exactly what I'm talking about - training sprawl, and then setting up a striking structure.

I don't think sportive grapplers train for such a scenario - when they arrive in that setup they are just not expecting any strike from that angle, and in MMA bouts, like UFC, they are certainly not expecting any strike to the back of their heads, which in terms of vulnerability, it appears like the go-to spot with a hammer fist.

I am assuming that in the more brutal past, this kind of approach to takedown attempts would have been the norm when training for open hand no rules duels. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Shakya said:


> But it doesn't seem to be a problem for GSP here, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 21764
> 
> 
> I think perhaps we need to be careful here about the way we are describing the situation - as I have re-emphasized on this thread already, the person is no longer "shooting in" - they've been stopped in their tracks - sprawled.
> 
> Otherwise it could sound like I am attempting to discuss trying to strike a speeding bullet. In the above video, GSP illustrates exactly what I'm talking about - training sprawl, and then setting up a striking structure.
> 
> I don't think sportive grapplers train for such a scenario - when they arrive in that setup they are just not expecting any strike from that angle, and in MMA bouts, like UFC, they are certainly not expecting any strike to the back of their heads, which in terms of vulnerability, it appears like the go-to spot with a hammer fist.
> 
> I am assuming that in the more brutal past, this kind of approach to takedown attempts would have been the norm when training for open hand no rules duels.
> 
> Thanks again.


Okay, what you’re looking at there is no longer a sprawl. GSP used the sprawl to set up a back take. From the back control position he certainly does have the possibility of hitting the back of the neck (as well as a lot of other targets). Another possibility (in a no-rules context) would be to to knee or kick the downed opponent in the head. This is part of why you really, really don’t want to be in the bottom of turtle position with someone on your back in a fight.

Getting back to your original question, I’m not sure I’d call it a “chink in the armor for grapplers.” That back control position is one you win by being the better grappler. If that’s the position you use for striking the back of the neck, then you could just as accurately say that it’s a potential tool in the grappler’s toolbox.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shakya said:


> sprawled.


If you want to strike on the back of your opponent's head, sprawl is not the proper counter. You don't have a good body structure to strike. The proper counter is to use both palms to press down on the back of your opponent's head. You then strike the back of his head with your elbow when you are in a perfect bow-arrow stance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shakya said:


> Yes, that structure would be a successful sprawl, for example, no?


For me sprawls are more of an "Oh Crap" moment where you were caught just enough by surprise that you don't have enough time to do anything else, but to make it make it more difficult for the person who is trying to take you down.  For me Sprawl = "You almost caught me completely off guard, so I'm going to make you work for the take down."  Sprawls don't have a good striking structure, sprawls are more of an escape structure.

I would consider a good striking structure, one where I can bear the weight of my strike down on my opponent knowing that they basically have to reset before trying to take me down again. I would also have to be able to be able to reset and strike again if I miss.  At that point I'm looking at trying to target the spine with my elbow in attempt to break the spine like I'm trying to break a board.  Technically I wouldn't need to break the spine.  I could rupture a disc and be effective as well.  If didn't think I was going to get that clean of a shot then I'm looking at trying to "knock the wind" out of my opponent by striking the back side the lungs, or trying to cause muscle spasms.  

Most people think of someone punching or kicking the stomach when talking about "knocking the wind out of someone"    But if you look at accidents where people fall, you'll notice that most of the time the person gets the wind knocked out from impacts to the back and the side.  The fight is basically over if I can strike my opponent in the back and make him sound like this.   





At point his only hope is to humor by singing "It's a wonderful" and maybe I'll be stunned enough to forget that I'm in a fight from the laughter.






See these kids think it's funny @ 1:40


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to strike on the back of your opponent's head, sprawl is not the proper counter. You don't have a good body structure to strike. The proper counter is to use both palms to press down on the back of your opponent's head. You then strike the back of his head with your elbow when you are in a perfect bow-arrow stance.


Yeah, but that depends on the opponent coming in with a crappy tackle rather than a proper wrestling shot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, but that depends on the opponent coming in with a crappy tackle rather than a proper wrestling shot.


The faster that your opponent's attack, the easier that you can lead him into the emptiness (kiss the dirt). It follows the wrestling principle that "If you want to ..., I'll help you to ... more than you want to."

During the 1983 US National Chinese wrestling tournament (Columbus, Ohio), during the championship match, my wrestling opponent (from Ohio State University wrestling team) attacked my leading leg twice and I took him down twice just like showing in that clip. Both rounds were finished within 7 seconds. That was the easiest 2 rounds that I ever had in my tournament years.

If you work on pulley daily. You will develop that "downward pulling" skill.






This is the only my teacher's tournament picture that I have (the referee was Wang Ziping). The exactly same move was used there.

wang zi ping - Google Search


----------



## JowGaWolf

Getting the wind knocked out is almost always the injury that people can laugh about.  Not because they get hurt but because of the sound that they make. Like what other injury would make a person sound like a hound dog lol.


----------



## drop bear

Shakya said:


> Exactly, I cannot believe that in the ancient, more brutal past, they would not have developed techniques that, when a takedown is sprawled successfully, attack the back of the head instead of, say, going for the guillotine, which can be more complicated to pull off.



Ok. Striking the back of the head doesn't stop the takedown. So it means you have to stop defending to go for it.

If you stop defending the takedown you obviously run a higher risk of being taken down. Which is about the worst thing that can happen to you in a fight.






Now to make a double leg easier. The grappler wants your hands high. When you start throwing elbows your hands go high. So you are giving up position. And making it easier for the takedown.

So you are trading defence for attack in the hope the elbows will finish the guy before you wind up on your back.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Ok. Striking the back of the head doesn't stop the takedown. So it means you have to stop defending to go for it.
> 
> If you stop defending the takedown you obviously run a higher risk of being taken down. Which is about the worst thing that can happen to you in a fight.


He's assuming that the second you sprawl correctly, you no longer have to worry about being taken down, as the attempt was stopped. So you can stop sprawling/defending to strike.


----------



## Shakya

Tony Dismukes said:


> Okay, what you’re looking at there is no longer a sprawl. GSP used the sprawl to set up a back take.
> Sure.





Tony Dismukes said:


> I’m not sure I’d call it a “chink in the armor for grapplers.” That back control position is one you win by being the better grappler. If that’s the position you use for striking the back of the neck, then you could just as accurately say that it’s a potential tool in the grappler’s toolbox.


Right, of course, and yet then there is a grappling element to many TMA, right? So the are always broad overlaps.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

kempodisciple said:


> He's assuming that the second you sprawl correctly, you no longer have to worry about being taken down, as the attempt was stopped. So you can stop sprawling/defending to strike.


This this isn’t always the case. You may have stopped the first attempt, but a good wrestler will chain attacks together and have a follow up for the first shot.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> He's assuming that the second you sprawl correctly, you no longer have to worry about being taken down, as the attempt was stopped. So you can stop sprawling/defending to strike.



The next progression from there is a sit out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shakya said:


> But it doesn't seem to be a problem for GSP here, for example:


But he's not striking from a sprawl position.  By the time he gets into a position to strike, he's in a completely different position and the takedown attempt is finished. His opponent would have to start all over in order to initiate another takedown attempt.  Which is what you see when he puts all of the weight on the guy when he tries to stand.  It causes what is referred to as an "Improper lift."   An "Improper lift" is any lifting motion that causes strain on the back.  The goal is to force the opponent to injure their back by lifting the weight of your body when the back is in a weak position to do so.  

They make tons of work place safety videos about improper lifting. It's the same concept, but in fighting, sparring, or wrestling,  the bad lifting structure is intentionally caused.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The next progression from there is a sit out.


  To counter that he should have been controlling that head or twisting the pinned guys torso. The moment he feels that head pop loose then he needs to re establish control.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to strike on the back of your opponent's head, sprawl is not the proper counter. You don't have a good body structure to strike. The proper counter is to use both palms to press down on the back of your opponent's head. You then strike the back of his head with your elbow when you are in a perfect bow-arrow stance.


One of the partner techniques I didn't like training.   When it's done correctly like scrapping your face on the ground.  You just have to make sure that the person shooting is fully committed to the take down to the point where they over-extend.

The only risk is not pushing down on the opponent by guiding them into the ground.  If you let them maintain a good structure then you'll put yourself in trouble.  At this point the kung fu answer is the same technique that a wrestler would use.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Striking the back of the head doesn't stop the takedown.


There is no rush to strike your opponent during your take down. When your opponent is on the ground, you will have all the time in the world to strike him.

A wrestler will use a take down to counter a take down. A striker may have to depend on striking to counter a take down. Unfortunately that striking window is very small.

The head lock is one exception. When you use head lock, you use your forearm to strike on the back of your opponent's head. So when you get a head lock on your opponent, you may have knocked him out 1/2 way already.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The only risk is not pushing down on the opponent by guiding them into the ground.  If you let them maintain a good structure then you'll put yourself in trouble.  At this point the kung fu answer is the same technique that a wrestler would use.


IMO, the "safest" way to counter a single leg is to use double under hooks to hook under your opponent's both shoulder. You can then twist his upper body, spring or lift one of his legs, and take him down.

The only concern of this approach is it's too conservative. Of course if you don't let your opponent to come in, he can't get your leg. But you can't take advantage on his commitment either.

The more aggressive counter is to use one over hook, use body spin, and leg lift (or leg spring) to take your opponent down. But you have to be really fast and this require a lot of serious training. This meet the requirement of

- If you want to come in, I'll help you to come in much more than you can handle.
- Move yourself out of your opponent's attacking path, and lead him into the emptiness.

Counters to single leg is a very interest subject. You can almost write a book about it.


----------



## Hanzou

Shakya said:


> Right, of course, and yet then there is a grappling element to many TMA, right? So the are always broad overlaps.



Perhaps, but its oftentimes under-practiced and archiac compared to modern grappling.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> To counter that he should have been controlling that head or twisting the pinned guys torso. The moment he feels that head pop loose then he needs to re establish control.



Hard to do while you are pumping a guy with your elbows.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> The next progression from there is a sit out.


I truly don't understand why his opponent tries to control his body and not controlling his arms. Giving your opponent 2 free arms is always a bad idea.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't understand why his opponent tries to control his body and not controlling his arms. Giving your opponent 2 free arms is always a bad idea.



Yeah. I would be head arm if I could.


----------



## Shakya

Hanzou said:


> Perhaps, but its oftentimes under-practiced and archiac compared to modern grappling.


Indeed - under-practiced in recent centuries at the very least- a point I have been suggesting could have been due to striking being of more concern, and grapplers not posing much of a threat anymore due to sprawl-type counters to takedowns followed by strikes to back of the head having been drilled in thoroughly.

Regarding what posters have been saying here about 'there will be a follow-up to the first foiled takedown', and 'there won't be time to strike after the first sprawl,' well GSP was demonstrating exactly that potential, so I don't understand how the opposite holds true.

Yes, he repositions himself to strike the head - I am not saying it is a simultaneous sprawl and strike. I am saying that after the sprawl has been successfully carried out, there a significant opportunity for a head strike move, as GSP shows.

Of course it can depend on a variety of variables as to whether the grappler's plan B works, or whether the post-sprawl strike move works, but both fighters being equal, I am assuming that the guy who has sprawled successfully holds more cards.

I also accept what others have said here about knee to the face after successful sprawl, but I still think that back of the head would probably guarantee more of a knockout.


----------



## now disabled

Shakya said:


> Indeed - under-practiced in recent centuries at the very least- a point I have been suggesting could have been due to striking being of more concern, and grapplers not posing much of a threat anymore due to sprawl-type counters to takedowns followed by strikes to back of the head having been drilled in thoroughly.



What do you mean by under practiced in recent centuries?

Grapplers not posing a threat anymore due to sprawl type counters, unless I'm missing something (and if I am I stand corrected) that kind of contradicts the first under practiced!? 



Shakya said:


> I also accept what others have said here about knee to the face after successful sprawl, but I still think that back of the head would probably guarantee more of a knockout.



If you catch a person with a knee strike to the face then I would say it be just as effective as the strike to back of neck, If a person is attempting to do a double leg on ya and you catch them with a knee to face, is it not more likely you are sending them in the opposite direction from yourself ? As a strike to back of neck, will that not made them come in on you, as in fall forwards onto you ? Just a thought in a SD situation that you might feel it more advantageous to not make the opponent fall towards you?


----------



## Shakya

now disabled said:


> What do you mean by under practiced in recent centuries?
> 
> Grapplers not posing a threat anymore due to sprawl type counters, unless I'm missing something (and if I am I stand corrected) that kind of contradicts the first under practiced!?


I meant that there was perhaps a phase of grappling takedowns being countered with the threat of strikes to back of head, to the point that such an attack was no longer considered a threat - no one was trying it in a serious no rules duel, and so the counter to such a takedown itself was no longer practiced because the threat of takedown wasn't being posed anymore.... until Gracies and UFC happened, of course, and it was rediscovered by the world.



now disabled said:


> If you catch a person with a knee strike to the face then I would say it be just as effective as the strike to back of neck, If a person is attempting to do a double leg on ya and you catch them with a knee to face, is it not more likely you are sending them in the opposite direction from yourself ? As a strike to back of neck, will that not made them come in on you, as in fall forwards onto you ? Just a thought in a SD situation that you might feel it more advantageous to not make the opponent fall towards you?


If you had first successfully sprawled, then the person would be underneath you, no? (in a kind of turtle). Then successfully landing a hammerfist to back of head would send their face into the ground, I expect.


----------



## now disabled

Shakya said:


> I meant that there was perhaps a phase of grappling takedowns being countered with the threat of strikes to back of head, to the point that such an attack was no longer considered a threat - no one was trying it in a serious no rules duel, and so the counter to such a takedown itself was no longer practiced because the threat of takedown wasn't being posed anymore.... until Gracies and UFC happened, of course, and it was rediscovered by the world.
> 
> 
> If you had first successfully sprawled, then the person would be underneath you, no? (in a kind of turtle). Then successfully landing a hammerfist to back of head would send their face into the ground, I expect.




In duels ? sorry but using grappling in a duel ...well I dunno what to say there, unless you are talking of empty hand fights ? as in a duel say between swords well ,,,,you lose your sword and duel is done and so are you basically.

I was alluding to before or as the opponent goes to take you then strike, as in don't wait to counter counter the initial movement


----------



## Shakya

now disabled said:


> In duels ? sorry but using grappling in a duel ...well I dunno what to say there, unless you are talking of empty hand fights ? as in a duel say between swords well ,,,,you lose your sword and duel is done and so are you basically.


Well, duels also famously occurred with pistols. But I am using the phrase loosely to include open hand duel type fights, as were occurring, it seems, in the context of where BJJ was created - see this vid at 0:42, for example:






It's still part of Brazilian culture now, it seems - capoeira of course, and like the "funk dance battles", fought in NY city in the 60s as precursor to breakdancing.


----------



## now disabled

Shakya said:


> Well, duels also famously occurred with pistols. But I am using the phrase loosely to include open hand duel type fights, as were occurring, it seems, in the context of where BJJ was created - see this vid at 0:42, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok never heard of that before, I still don't quite get where your going with this as it all seems to be based around sports or such like. That guy just looks like he has mixed in something else which if it works for him then cool
> 
> It's still part of Brazilian culture now, it seems - capoeira of course, and like the "funk dance battles", fought in NY city in the 60s as precursor to breakdancing.


----------



## drop bear

Shakya said:


> If you had first successfully sprawled, then the person would be underneath you, no? (in a kind of turtle). Then successfully landing a hammerfist to back of head would send their face into the ground, I expect.



Your hands are busy at north south.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> In duels ? sorry but using grappling in a duel ...well I dunno what to say there, unless you are talking of empty hand fights ? as in a duel say between swords well ,,,,you lose your sword and duel is done and so are you basically.
> 
> I was alluding to before or as the opponent goes to take you then strike, as in don't wait to counter counter the initial movement



I thought grappling was pretty common in sword duels.


----------



## Shakya

Here is what happened in a UFC fight when Travis Browne struck his opponent, who was going for a grappling takedown, in the back of his head with his elbow:





I am guessing that this would have been a common scene in brutal fights where grappling takedowns were attempted in the past. Of course it is illegal in MMA.

And here is Browne talking about that exact situation, the exact description of "back of the head" in UFC, and about how he thought, in 2014, that that detail "is going to modify a lot of what happens now - when people get tired of trying to just shoot for sloppy doubles." I am not sure exactly what he means in that last sentence (watch from 1:22):






I am assuming that if grapplers and pro MMA fighters were hit like that more often, they would not be as confident in the fighting value of the takedown as they are at present? - When both fighters are equal, and there are no rules, for example.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I thought grappling was pretty common in sword duels.


I agree grappling is common with most weapons.  I recently posted that there is grappling in the staff form that I do.  The first thing I think of when I think of knife fight is not getting stabbed and grabbing a the stabbing hand.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shakya said:


> I am assuming that if grapplers and pro MMA fighters were hit like that more often, they would not be as confident in the fighting value of the takedown as they are at present? - When both fighters are equal, and there are no rules, for example.


nope. they would just improve their technique and shoot with better technique.

The video that you showed has everything that many have talked about.  Stopping the attempt, being in a striking structure, maintaining the striking structure that allows repetitive strikes.  It took 5 elbows to the back of the head to KO the fighter.

Self-defense perspectives would have told people not to expose their back like that in a real fight simply because your vision is gone.  You can't see and deal with multiple attackers.  You don't know if the guy you are holding on to is going to pull a knife out and stick it into your back, your sides, or even your face.


----------



## Shakya

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree grappling is common with most weapons.  I recently posted that there is grappling in the staff form that I do.  The first thing I think of when I think of knife fight is not getting stabbed and grabbing a the stabbing hand.


Right, so it seems that grappling as an option during non-sportive fighting is simply being rediscovered, rather than as a result of modern insights that 'upgrade' TMA.

The traditional wushu stances of Chinese kungfu, for example, can be seen to be incredibly useful for grappling - especially the three in the top row of this illustration - horse stance for lowering center of gravity whilst lifting, bow stance for sprawling takedowns, and collapsed (squatting) stance for side control leverage options.






You can watch from 2:24 in this video - good mobility with leg out like in collapsed stance is useful:





Here is a rare display of the Shaolin version, using these stances:




Unfortunately the guy in the video is apparently now a convict.

Perhaps it is just a matter of time before we see some of these low kungfu-looking stances in MMA bouts?



JowGaWolf said:


> nope. they would just improve their technique and shoot with better technique.


... and be more weary of strikes to the backs of their heads at all times also, right? I think it would definitely change the dynamics.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> I thought grappling was pretty common in sword duels.


From my understanding (based on western sword arts, not so much chinese/japanese, but I assume it's the same), you learn grappling, because if you end up up close and you don't know it then you're screwed. But, while you spend a decent amount of time training that, the hope in an actual duel would be never to have to use that. You see it more in weapons sparring because in some sparrings you continue past the first strike, so you need to follow up with something.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shakya said:


> Right, so it seems that grappling as an option during non-sportive fighting is simply being rediscovered, rather than as a result of modern insights that 'upgrade' TMA.


 Correct.  grappling is always an option when it comes to fighting.  Only sports fighting strips fighting down to kicking only, punching only, grappling only.    In terms of TMA especially CMA, fighting is a dirty and aggressive activity that you may or may not benefit from or come out of without serious harm.  Traditionally all of the systems used for combat were never meant to be kind to the enemy or sportsman like.   Most of them have evolved into a sport. No one says, "lets make a technique to break someone's arm, as fun sport."  or  "lets create a sword for technique to cut someone for laughs."



Shakya said:


> The traditional wushu stances of Chinese kungfu, for example, can be seen to be incredibly useful for grappling - especially the three in the top row of this illustration - horse stance for lowering center of gravity whilst lifting, bow stance for sprawling takedowns, and collapsed (squatting) stance for side control leverage options.


I'm not a fan of Wushu so I won't commit on that as a fighting system.   I will however say you are correct about the horse stance for lowering center of gravity, but it has very little to do with that or lifting.  I use a horse stance against grapplers and the lowering center of gravity and lifting is just a small benefit.  

Bow stance is also different.  It's not used for sprawling or how most people think of bow stance.  Bow stance actually breaks structure.  There are popular misconceptions about the martial arts stances when it comes to grappling.  You can see lots of bow stances here.





Horse stance, Bow stance, cross stance, and cat stance are often misunderstood.  



Shakya said:


> and be more weary of strikes to the backs of their heads at all times also, right? I think it would definitely change the dynamics.


Nope they won't be more weary of the strikes to the back of the heads.   One of the benefits of a good Fighting Technique is that addresses those dangers with you having to think about the danger.  The concept of one hand blocking while the other hand strikes is common in many punching techniques.  This concept allows you to better protect your head while punching.  You don't have to sit there and be weary about being hit in the head each time you punch. 

As long as you follow the technique then chances are that your opponent will think you are too protected to hit you in the head.  
or
Your guarding and will be in good position to better protect you in the event that your opponent punches you at the same time you punch.  Below has some perfect examples of this.  Follow that simple concept of one hand defends and the other hand protects, means you have one less thing to worry about.


----------

