A Question of Technique and Practical Application.

[drop bear]

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

Sort off. And you should be angling out before you are sprawling because it defends before they start to get that good position. But a lot of that has to do with your set up and when they are going for that takedown.

To pull it off you need to be outfighting if you are in the ring or utilising the reactionary gap if you are on the street.

 

[Hanzou]

Interesting as in "please armbar me?"

Arm bars, sweeps, chokes, the list goes on and on.

Im always struck by the sheer ignorance shown in videos like that. For starters, no one is going to get you in a dangerous guard (i.e. A guard you feel that you need to fight out of) unless they're trained. If they're trained, you extending your arms forward while pressing your hips backwards is like a dream come true.

The idea that you're going to be able to push my chin upwards, then switch back into seated position to punch my groin all while I'm in closed guard is hilarious. I implore anyone to try that even against a white belt in Bjj, it's not going to work.

 

[drop bear]

Arm bars, sweeps, chokes, the list goes on and on.

Im always struck by the sheer ignorance shown in videos like that. For starters, no one is going to get you in a dangerous guard (i.e. A guard you feel that you need to fight out of) unless they're trained. If they're trained, you extending your arms forward while pressing your hips backwards is like a dream come true.

The idea that you're going to be able to push my chin upwards, then switch back into seated position to punch my groin all while I'm in closed guard is hilarious. I implore anyone to try that even against a white belt in Bjj, it's not going to work.

Or let's keep this street. Just use your head either to grind or headbutt. More painful and less risky. We do that grind a lot.

 

[Hanzou]

Or let's keep this street. Just use your head either to grind or headbutt. More painful and less risky. We do that grind a lot.

To get out of guard, or to punish people in your guard?

 

[Chris Parker]

It would appear that Emin Boztepe and others disagree.

Er… what? Can you back that up with anything? I mean… the website for Emin's organisation here in Australia (Master Emin Boztepe) states pretty clearly:

"… Anti Grappling, which he officially created according to the scientific beliefs of the Wing Tzun system"… which is, really, exactly what I said…

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

"Threatening enough"? Again, get over yourself and your system. The fact that there is a larger awareness of ground fighting, and Emin (as well as others) decided to expand their system to help cover this range by utilising methods, principles, ideas, and concepts already extant within their methodologies does not, in any way, indicate that anyone was "threatened".

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.

What? He calls you out on your claims about the reasons for the development of such methods, points out that it's hardly across the board in Wing Chun, tries to teach you about differences throughout the range of Wing Chun lineages (families)… He's not distancing himself from anything, other than your odd ideas.

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?

No, you believe that it was created for marketing purposes, you feel the techniques are "outright silly" (I'd need to see a lot more of it before I made any complete assessment), simply because they don't match what you expect (here's the thing… BJJ are ground specialists… they are, frankly, fantastic at it… but that doesn't mean that their approach is the only one, or the best in all contexts… a different context requires a different answer… so, unless you understand the context, you're not in a position to say whether or not it's "silly"… or worse)… and none of those would label it as "fraudulent", unless they were claiming it was an ancient form of tiger-wrestling or some such… you really should learn what terms such as "fraudulent" actually mean, as your thread on the subject was completely off base and ignorant of what you were trying to discuss…

See above.

Right back at ya, Horatio…

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.)

Hey Tony,

Yep, agreed with that… but then again, I'm not training my guys to handle a trained grappler so much… it's just not a high priority or likelihood here… as said, the context needs to be understood first and foremost… of course, given his video examples, I'd say that drop bear is talking about the "standard" two-leg version… but he can correct if that's not the case.

Please elaborate?

Shakespeare. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Act 1, Scene 5, lines 167-8.

Hamlet: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[drop bear]

To get out of guard, or to punish people in your guard?

Either they let you out or they are punished for it. And your hands are free to do stuff. In mma you would generally crack them in the head for example.

In the street you would crack them in the head then steal their wallet or something.

 

[Hanzou]

Er… what? Can you back that up with anything? I mean… the website for Emin's organisation here in Australia (Master Emin Boztepe) states pretty clearly:

"… Anti Grappling, which he officially created according to the scientific beliefs of the Wing Tzun system"… which is, really, exactly what I said…

Take a look at anti grappling. It clearly flies in the face of any sound principle within Wing Chun. Whereas Wing Chun is an effective style of MA, anti-grappling is pretty ineffective.

"Threatening enough"? Again, get over yourself and your system. The fact that there is a larger awareness of ground fighting, and Emin (as well as others) decided to expand their system to help cover this range by utilising methods, principles, ideas, and concepts already extant within their methodologies does not, in any way, indicate that anyone was "threatened".

Again, the methods, principles, and concepts fail when it comes to anti-grappling, because while WC is effective, anti-grappling is ineffective. This btw supports Danny T's assessment that it was a marketing gimmick.

No, you believe that it was created for marketing purposes,

Danny T said it was created for marketing purposes.

you feel the techniques are "outright silly"

Because they don't work. There's plenty of threads where experienced grapplers pick apart anti-grappling and show WHY it's ineffective. That ineffectiveness again supports the notion that it was just created to make money.

(I'd need to see a lot more of it before I made any complete assessment),

Then maybe you should do that before participating in this discussion? Just a thought.

simply because they don't match what you expect (here's the thing… BJJ are ground specialists… they are, frankly, fantastic at it… but that doesn't mean that their approach is the only one, or the best in all contexts… a different context requires a different answer… so, unless you understand the context, you're not in a position to say whether or not it's "silly"… or worse)… and none of those would label it as "fraudulent", unless they were claiming it was an ancient form of tiger-wrestling or some such… you really should learn what terms such as "fraudulent" actually mean, as your thread on the subject was completely off base and ignorant of what you were trying to discuss…

Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.

 

[Chris Parker]

Take a look at anti grappling. It clearly flies in the face of any sound principle within Wing Chun. Whereas Wing Chun is an effective style of MA, anti-grappling is pretty ineffective.

I have looked at it, in various iterations from a range of instructors… and would like you to explain Wing Chun principles, and point out where their "anti-grappling", in your words, "clearly flies in the face" of such principles. Saying that you don't think it's effective is not the same thing, you understand.

Again, the methods, principles, and concepts fail when it comes to anti-grappling, because while WC is effective, anti-grappling is ineffective. This btw supports Danny T's assessment that it was a marketing gimmick.

Danny didn't say it was a marketing gimmick, he said the name was coined by one organisation largely for marketing purposes (i.e. to tell people that they had an answer for ground work). And whether you regard it as effective or not is not really relevant to a discussion of the principles of Wing Chun.

Danny T said it was created for marketing purposes.

No, he didn't. He said it was named for marketing purposes. Go back and check… I'll wait.

Because they don't work. There's plenty of threads where experienced grapplers pick apart anti-grappling and show WHY it's ineffective. That ineffectiveness again supports the notion that it was just created to make money.

No, it doesn't… it might support the idea that the people who created it aren't as well versed as a specialist in the area… or it might support the idea that the specialists aren't who it's designed to go against… or any of a number of other aspects. Your bias is not the reality.

Then maybe you should do that before participating in this discussion? Just a thought.

Well, that's one way to take a comment out of context… I have seen a fair bit, but not what I would consider the entire curriculum. In fact, I don't know what percentage I have seen… I've seen various approaches from different areas and instructors, some better than others, but that's not enough to make a comment on everything that's done. That was my point.

How about you? Just how extensive is your exposure to Wing Chun anti-grappling? Is it just a few choice you-tube videos, or do you have something else to back things up?

Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.

And, one more time because you keep missing the simple reality here, ineffective is not the same as fraudulent. Get that idea out of your head, as all it shows is that you are unable to understand actual English words properly in their context.

As far as what you're in a position to say, is it really created to counter your particular art? Or was it created to deal with the larger awareness of ground fighting in the general populace, but not necessarily "skilled" ground work? Do you understand how they are actually quite different?

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.

1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.

 

[Hanzou]

I have looked at it, in various iterations from a range of instructors… and would like you to explain Wing Chun principles, and point out where their "anti-grappling", in your words, "clearly flies in the face" of such principles. Saying that you don't think it's effective is not the same thing, you understand.

I know it doesn't work. Again, any experienced grappler can look at it and tell you it's ineffective. It's not difficult to determine what works in grappling and what doesn't.

Wing Chun wasn't designed to fight from that range, and that's painfully obvious.

Danny didn't say it was a marketing gimmick, he said the name was coined by one organisation largely for marketing purposes (i.e. to tell people that they had an answer for ground work). And whether you regard it as effective or not is not really relevant to a discussion of the principles of Wing Chun.
No, he didn't. He said it was named for marketing purposes. Go back and check… I'll wait.

At this point it's best to let Danny pop back in and clarify what he meant.

No, it doesn't… it might support the idea that the people who created it aren't as well versed as a specialist in the area… or it might support the idea that the specialists aren't who it's designed to go against… or any of a number of other aspects. Your bias is not the reality.

The fact that it's called "anti-grappling" implies that it was designed to fight against skilled grapplers, and was a cash grab to capitalize on Bjj and MMA's explosion in popularity.

Well, that's one way to take a comment out of context… I have seen a fair bit, but not what I would consider the entire curriculum. In fact, I don't know what percentage I have seen… I've seen various approaches from different areas and instructors, some better than others, but that's not enough to make a comment on everything that's done. That was my point.

And I have yet to see anything out of anti-grappling that looks marginally effective.

And, one more time because you keep missing the simple reality here, ineffective is not the same as fraudulent. Get that idea out of your head, as all it shows is that you are unable to understand actual English words properly in their context.

When someone creates an ineffective combat system out of thin air, we tend to call it fraudulent around these parts. Why? Because it doesn't do what it was marketed to do.

As far as what you're in a position to say, is it really created to counter your particular art? Or was it created to deal with the larger awareness of ground fighting in the general populace, but not necessarily "skilled" ground work? Do you understand how they are actually quite different?

Considering that anti-grappling popped up right when Bjj gained popularity, it's pretty hard to not recognize the purpose behind its creation. I mean wrestling has been around for centuries, no one in WC or WT created "anti-grappling" back then to counter that form of grappling.

 

[Hanzou]

I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.

1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.

You can actually break closed guard with your elbows. He simply didn't do it correctly.

 

[Blindside]

I can see two problems with this escape right off the bat without even looking at potential counters.

1) Trying to get your arms between his arms while he is holding your head to his chest where is no room.
2) Trying to push down his legs with your elbows, you would have to be a lot stronger than him.

Actually the elbow to inner thigh is a legit way to open the guard, but usually has to be accompanied by backward pressure against the feet, which this guy didn't do.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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



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

The embarrassing thing about this is that it's completely unnecessary. If he's purporting to teach street self-defense, he should know that no mugger is ever going to jump out of a dark alley and pull guard on you.

 

[K-man]

The embarrassing thing about this is that it's completely unnecessary. If he's purporting to teach street self-defense, he should know that no mugger is ever going to jump out of a dark alley and pull guard on you.

I tend to disagree. Certainly you are right to say that no mugger is going to pull guard on you in an alley but if Krav is to be considered to be a comprehensive fighting system then we need to at least teach basic defences against situations that we might find ourselves in. For example, with the popularity of MMA it is possible that more people might have a basic understanding of grappling. When we do end up on the ground it is quite possible that we could end up in the guard. From a practical point of view, if we end up on the ground as someone did in the train station video, with someone on our chest, then in rolling out of that you end up in the guard. If your attacker closes the guard and you don't know how to escape your training is lacking. I even teach it to my karate guys.

In training years back we used to train to escape and pass the guard into a side mount then somehow move around and into the mount. I don't see any real value for me in that sort of training now. I just want to get back on my feet ASAP.
:asian:

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Again, it's fraudulent because its ineffective. And since it was created to counter my particular martial art, I think I'm in a good enough position to say whether something works against my martial art or not.

Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, I wouldn't call it fraudulent. Arrogant, ignorant, and ill-advised maybe, but not fraudulent. I'm sure most of the practitioners teaching that sort of "anti-grappling" sincerely believe it can be effective.

I'm sure many of the FMA practitioners around here have the same reaction to the unarmed knife defenses taught in most martial arts. If they can refrain from continually jumping in and telling everyone else how suicidal their knife disarms would be against a skilled Kali practitioner, I'm sure we BJJer's can cut other people some slack as well.

 

[drop bear]

Anyway here are 57 guard passes that work. Pick one.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6OXHhvKaSA

 

[K-man]

Anyway here are 57 guard passes that work. Pick one.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6OXHhvKaSA

Most of which have absolutely no place in the context of SD or as a replacement for the Krav one that Hanzou posted.
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, I wouldn't call it fraudulent. Arrogant, ignorant, and ill-advised maybe, but not fraudulent. I'm sure most of the practitioners teaching that sort of "anti-grappling" sincerely believe it can be effective.

I'm sure many of the FMA practitioners around here have the same reaction to the unarmed knife defenses taught in most martial arts. If they can refrain from continually jumping in and telling everyone else how suicidal their knife disarms would be against a skilled Kali practitioner, I'm sure we BJJer's can cut other people some slack as well.

Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.

Anti-grapplers claim that they can defeat skilled grapplers with their abilities. That's the difference.

 

[K-man]

Well we don't claim that our knife disarming abilities can stop a FMA knife practitioner.

Anti-grapplers claim that they can defeat skilled grapplers with their abilities. That's the difference.

:BSmeter:

 

[Hanzou]

:BSmeter:

If I created a system called anti-knife fighting, it would be safe to assume that my system handles all forms of knife-fighting. That would include those highly skilled with the blade.