A Question of Technique and Practical Application.

[K-man]

Yes, and you decided to tack on a thinly veiled insult in my direction as well.

So I will participate, since this wonderful thread began because of me.

It was only thinly veiled to you. However your contribution would be appreciated if you could just keep to the topic, please.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In another thread this video was put up to show that Krav techniques are not effective for Reality Based training. The original poster seems to be an expert on YouTube clips but little else, but I digress. In this clip a guy called Moni Aizik is demonstrating a defence against a shoot takedown. Now Moni has a Judo background and is not really Krav (a simple search will give you details if you like), so this is not really a Krav technique at all despite the YouTube label.

What I would like to discuss, hopefully with guys with extensive RB backgrounds like Rich, Brian and TSD, what do you think of this technique? I won't comment beyond saying that I took it to my karate class last night and I will give it to my Krav guys tonight. I'll discuss my feelings after a few people have a chance to respond.

Here is the clip.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

:asian:

I really don't have a problem with the first move, but it all goes to hell from there.

 

[hoshin1600]

I will have to agree with the consensus that it's not a viable reality defense technique. The way I view this technique is that it is totally reliant on moving the leg back out of reach. As was mentioned a skilled person doing a take down like this happens at a closer range then most would think and the reactionary time lag of the 1/4 second rule would make stepping back like this impossible. If the take down was done in an amateur sloppy way with enough time to do this why not just step out of the way and kick the dude in the face.

 

[drop bear]

It was only thinly veiled to you. However your contribution would be appreciated if you could just keep to the topic, please.

By the way how did your krav guys go with it?

 

[K-man]

By the way how did your krav guys go with it?

Well for a start a few of us are too old to bend down that far so the elbow missed by a good 6 inches.

But, seriously? I wouldn't teach that in a pink fit. I think it is like a lot of stuff you see on the internet. Something that at first glance looks ok but when you think about it, it is fundamentally flawed. I've always gone with the basic sprawl but if I get a chance I'll go through some of my Krav material to see what else they might use. For me personally, bringing a foot back, turning the hip in and with the arm beside the neck for a choke, face bar or a straight twisting takedown is my preferred option, but hey, I teach you have to work from what you get. Guy rushes in, you react, what comes next depends on the position you find yourself in which is why we train multiple defences, but the initial sprawl or part thereof is the basic first step.
:asian:

 

[geezer]

They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.

Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.

Some WC guys.


Personally, I 'm pretty much in line with Drop Bear, et. al. on this one. If the guy comes at you from out of range with a clumsy horizontal tackle, I'd go off-line and stuff his head. Against a decent shoot, I sprawl and crossface, then get behind him and establish control. And I'm a WC guy ....who began my MA journey as a wrestler.



BTW "anti-grappling" has become a catch-all term that encompasses anything a striker can use to maintain his game against a grappler. IMO it can never be as versatile and effective as having a great command of both striking and grappling. So what? It is what it is.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Really hard to get off line like that against a good grappler who is committed to getting a double leg.

Unless you happen to be good at getting off the line.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Forearms to the shoulders, similar to a 'fence' keeps him at bay and give the opportunity to hook one shoulder to roll him to the ground using his own forward momentum, or simply redirect his face to the ground. Either way you have numerous finishing options. Once his forward momentum is stopped, the opportunity to strike with the forearm to the back of the neck, elbow to the spine or knee to the head may be available. As Tony said, you can do what is available to you.

Another variation, depending on the level of the attacker, is one arm on the shoulder and the other arm between you and your attacker's neck. That can give you a face bar or a choke.
:asian:

One variation that I have been working on is after the double forearm to the shoulders, from that position, to clamp on to either side of the neck and twisting them down to the ground towards the rear leg.

 

[Hanzou]

BTW "anti-grappling" has become a catch-all term that encompasses anything a striker can use to maintain his game against a grappler. IMO it can never be as versatile and effective as having a great command of both striking and grappling. So what? It is what it is.

Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, learn grappling. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.

 

[K-man]

They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.

Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.

Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, learn grappling. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.

As you will see it was you that started the 'anti grappling' nonsense. Discuss it by all means but not on this thread! Start another one. This thread is discussing a video that you posted and when we are through discussing it I will put up the next one that you posted that was just as bad.

 

[Chris Parker]

Trying to give a simple high percentage defence that a person could do without having to step inside a grappling gym. Yes there are other options but I picked that one for the sake of simplicity.

A really hard cross face will stand the guy up as well. Yes you will go into a fifty fifty clinch and then have to deal with that. But we wanted to avoid the ground. So avoid the ground I did.

What was your idea on an alternative?

As I said, your approach was one… not the only… nor the best, depending on the context. So, if you're going to ask about alternatives, you need to understand the context first…

To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application… and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is… it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted… but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself… what I'd class as a "half sprawl"… in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play… the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent… which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution).

Both versions have advantages, and disadvantages… as every technique does… so what you need to do is to understand what the context you're applying it in is, and pick the one which suits your context best. My version, in a sporting context, is unnecessarily open to attack… the more classic "sprawl", in my context, is dangerously unbalanced and immobile.

They don't want to sprawl because they want to be different from MMA/Wrestling/Bjj.

Er… what?

No. They don't want to sprawl because it simply doesn't suit the body mechanics, tactical methodology, principles, ideals, and concepts of Wing Chun. There's no need to be similar to anything other than Wing Chun, and no need to be different from anything either.

Its the same reason Wing Chun guys conjured up anti-grappling instead of actually learning how to grapple.

"Conjured up"?!?!

Dude. Grappling is not the be-all, end-all… it's just one area… and hardly the best there is.

You're the first WC exponent that has actually admitted that. Kudos.

Admitted what?!?! Did you actually read his post? He mentioned that the term "anti-grappling" was coined by one organisation… with no mention of it being a Wing Chun one… followed by saying that only one family/branch of Wing Chun has adopted the term themselves… so what exactly do you think that Danny "admitted"?!?!?

Seriously, you're seemingly unable to see beyond the small area you think is important… do we need to go back to Horatio again?

There's a big difference between the Guard, and making up an entirely fraudulent method of self defense simply because you want to curtail the grappling/MMA craze.

Careful with throwing around the f word, there… you may not like the approach found in some Wing Chun schools, you may find it flawed, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent… it just means that it's flawed… or, at the least, less than effective… you might want to come to grips with the difference there…

I agree. What makes you think I don't believe that?

Because you call methods you're less than impressed with "fraudulent", for one… there's more, of course…

Which is in itself nonsense. If you're a striker and wish to be able to handle a grappler, learn grappling. That is the only reliable way to be able to overcome a grappler. You don't want to rely on untested skills and theory that supposedly only work against an unskilled grapplers, because there are skilled grapplers out there who are d-bags and like to hurt people.

Yeah… we're going to go back to Horatio…

 

[Hanzou]

As you will see it was you that started the 'anti grappling' nonsense. Discuss it by all means but not on this thread! Start another one. This thread is discussing a video that you posted and when we are through discussing it I will put up the next one that you posted that was just as bad.

I mentioned the anti-grappling stuff because its relevant to the topic. That "Krav Maga" TD counter is just as ridiculous at the anti-grappling WC stuff. They were both concocted for the same reasons, and they serve the same purposes.

You should also post the Krav Maga kick in the fact to counter the double leg takedown.

 

[Hanzou]

Er… what?

No. They don't want to sprawl because it simply doesn't suit the body mechanics, tactical methodology, principles, ideals, and concepts of Wing Chun. There's no need to be similar to anything other than Wing Chun, and no need to be different from anything either.

It would appear that Emin Boztepe and others disagree.

"Conjured up"?!?!

Dude. Grappling is not the be-all, end-all… it's just one area… and hardly the best there is.

Yet clearly threatening enough to conjure up an entirely made up system to counter it.

Admitted what?!?! Did you actually read his post? He mentioned that the term "anti-grappling" was coined by one organisation… with no mention of it being a Wing Chun one… followed by saying that only one family/branch of Wing Chun has adopted the term themselves… so what exactly do you think that Danny "admitted"?!?!?

Read Danny's post again. Its pretty clear that he is distancing himself from WC practitioners who have embraced anti-grappling as a legitimate aspect of Wing Chun.

Careful with throwing around the f word, there… you may not like the approach found in some Wing Chun schools, you may find it flawed, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent… it just means that it's flawed… or, at the least, less than effective… you might want to come to grips with the difference there…

We've already established that it was created purely for marketing purposes, and that the techniques applied are ineffective to outright silly. What else should we call it?

Because you call methods you're less than impressed with "fraudulent", for one… there's more, of course…

See above.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application… and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is… it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted… but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself… what I'd class as a "half sprawl"… in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play… the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent… which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution).

Both versions have advantages, and disadvantages… as every technique does… so what you need to do is to understand what the context you're applying it in is, and pick the one which suits your context best. My version, in a sporting context, is unnecessarily open to attack… the more classic "sprawl", in my context, is dangerously unbalanced and immobile.

I'd agree with most of this, except to note that what you are calling a "half-sprawl" is taught in some grappling circles as just a variation on the more typical two-legs back sprawl. It doesn't have a separate name that I've ever heard. I don't know which variation drop bear prefers for non-sporting encounters. I do agree that if the attacker is not a skilled wrestler then the variation you prefer is safer for a street situation. (If the attacker is a skilled wrestler making a good technical shot, I would still go back to the full two legs back version. In that case, the risk of getting caught by a second attacker before I can disengage is less than the risk of getting dumped and caught underneath a skilled wrestler.)

 

[K-man]

I mentioned the anti-grappling stuff because its relevant to the topic. That "Krav Maga" TD counter is just as ridiculous at the anti-grappling WC stuff. They were both concocted for the same reasons, and they serve the same purposes.

You should also post the Krav Maga kick in the fact to counter the double leg takedown.

Not true. It was not only totally irrelevant, it was taking a cheap shot at WC ... again!

Seeing you are the expert on Krav, perhaps you might like to post a video of 'the Krav kick'. It is quite possible I have never seen it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

That first move will work, but I would only recommend that re-entry as a takedown with and elbow shot to soften him up a little. It is all good stuff, but in the wrong context. I watched a few other vids, and it all looks like kenpo that would never work. LOL

 

[Transk53]

KB froze on me. Mmm quite a bad WiFi signal. Mods please delete. Thanks.

 

[Transk53]

As I said, your approach was one… not the only… nor the best, depending on the context. So, if you're going to ask about alternatives, you need to understand the context first…

To that end, the context I train for (in this sense) is more of a "street" application… and there, a proper sprawl, which involves sending both of your legs back and away, as well as your hips, is actually relatively dangerous for many of the reasons it's largely safe in competition. It's a very effective defence against a committed, skilled low shoot (whether a double, single, whatever), as it removes the target (the legs and hips), and stops the opponents momentum by applying your weight down on their upper back. Thing is… it's safe there as there's a single opponent, and the action will allow you to strongly based and posted… but less mobile in the disengagement. So what would I suggest? Actually, it's really a variation on the sprawl itself… what I'd class as a "half sprawl"… in this version, you only go back with one leg, rather than both, while shifting your hips back (and away), and stopping the opponent's forward movement with a jamming forearm/elbow or two (depending on how it ends up). The advantage is that it's faster to change or disengage, and keeps more of your weapons in play… the disadvantage is that it leaves one leg still forward, and open to the possibility of a secondary attack from the opponent… which is why the rest has to work properly, and a follow up is essential (as well as proper weight management and distribution).

Both versions have advantages, and disadvantages… as every technique does… so what you need to do is to understand what the context you're applying it in is, and pick the one which suits your context best. My version, in a sporting context, is unnecessarily open to attack… the more classic "sprawl", in my context, is dangerously unbalanced and immobile.



Er… what?

No. They don't want to sprawl because it simply doesn't suit the body mechanics, tactical methodology, principles, ideals, and concepts of Wing Chun. There's no need to be similar to anything other than Wing Chun, and no need to be different from anything either.



"Conjured up"?!?!

Dude. Grappling is not the be-all, end-all… it's just one area… and hardly the best there is.



Admitted what?!?! Did you actually read his post? He mentioned that the term "anti-grappling" was coined by one organisation… with no mention of it being a Wing Chun one… followed by saying that only one family/branch of Wing Chun has adopted the term themselves… so what exactly do you think that Danny "admitted"?!?!?

Seriously, you're seemingly unable to see beyond the small area you think is important… do we need to go back to Horatio again?



Careful with throwing around the f word, there… you may not like the approach found in some Wing Chun schools, you may find it flawed, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent… it just means that it's flawed… or, at the least, less than effective… you might want to come to grips with the difference there…



Because you call methods you're less than impressed with "fraudulent", for one… there's more, of course…



Yeah… we're going to go back to Horatio…

Yeah… we're going to go back to Horatio…

Please elaborate?

 

[Hanzou]

Not true. It was not only totally irrelevant, it was taking a cheap shot at WC ... again!

Taking a shot at anti-grappling isn't taking a shot at WC.

Seeing you are the expert on Krav, perhaps you might like to post a video of 'the Krav kick'. It is quite possible I have never seen it.

Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;

 

[Blindside]

Unfortunately I couldn't find that vid, but I did find this one that was pretty interesting;

Interesting as in "please armbar me?"