Anti-takedown techniques using internal energy

[vic]

Can the methods shown below really work outside of sparring, in a competitive fight or self-defense situation?

 

[Flying Crane]

I don’t know. What are your thoughts?

 

[drop bear]

Do they contain the energies of overhook, crossfire, sprawl?

There was a bunch of tai chi fantasy videos put out. I think the 2nd one is one of those.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Can the methods shown below really work outside of sparring, in a competitive fight or self-defense situation?

It depennds on how your opponent may set up his takedown. If your opponent uses "arm drag" to drag you around in circle, none of your "internal" energy will work.

 

[vic]

I don’t know. What are your thoughts?

I'm studying baguazhang with a move like the bear palm. I suppose with enough skill, redirecting an opponent's energy in a downward direction is possible. But I haven't had a chance to test against a live opponent because of the pandemic.

 

[drop bear]

I'm studying baguazhang with a move like the bear palm. I suppose with enough skill, redirecting an opponent's energy in a downward direction is possible. But I haven't had a chance to test against a live opponent because of the pandemic.

The bear palm relies on a flawed take down

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

May be we need to define what "internal energy" is. Is it superior than "external energy"? How?

 

[Steve]

Watched the first video. I think the positive thing I can say about it is that underhooks are definitely useful.

Here's what I would say is a more technically sound demonstration of the same concepts from the first video:

It's the same idea, but he's defending against a properly executed takedown, and he's doing it in a way that doesn't rely on magic.

First video below, the guy is standing tall and his hands are at his side. The other guy is hunched over, legs straight, no elevation change at all, and is charging in head first. He's also got his arms flung out to the side inviting the double underhooks.

In the picture below (from the video in this post), the person is protecting himself, and the bad guy is dropping his elevation, keeping his head back and executing a technically sound double leg. He's also not flinging his arms out to the side.

Because the guy in the first video was so high, it is very easy to get the underhooks without even bending your knees.

But in this case, the guy gets the underhooks, but is also dropping his center of gravity by bending his knees and shooting his hips back. He's not quite sprawling at this point, but could easily do that if needed from this position.

 

[Oily Dragon]

May be we need to define what "internal energy" is. Is it superior than "external energy"? How?

In this context, internal = force at close range, not some extended strike. The dan tian/core and the legs are doing most of the work, arms are there for control.

I think both videos showcase some value, the first guy appears pretty well trained. It's hard for people to put together a decent demo video, even when they're good at whatever it is. I'm pretty sure his child is part of the film crew, if I heard the start correctly.

The "bear" is basically the same concept as Zhan Zhuang and the energies in Tai Chi. It's hard to miss that, it's also found in other arts. In Hung Ga Kuen it's the Controlling Bridge.

The second video looked like any typical Judo randori session to me, unless I'm missing something. If it's staged, it's a good staging. If Tai Chi dudes want to go pull with judoka, god bless em.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In this context, internal = force at close range, not some extended strike.

People try to make a big deal about "internal energy" or external energy. To counter a takedown, it depends on who controls who's arm/arms. It has nothing to do with "internal" or external.

Before you apply your takedown, you have to control your opponent's arm/arms first. If you can do that, your opponent's "internal enetgy" will have no effect on you.

In the following 2 clips, they control rheir opponent's arm by "reverse arm drag".

The couter should be "how to deal with your opponent's arm drag?" and not "how to use your internal energy?"

Is there "internal" way to deal with arm drag and external way to deal with arm drag? I don't think so.

 

[Oily Dragon]

People try to make a big deal about "internal energy" or external energy. It depends on who controls who's arm/arms. It has nothing to do with "internal" or external.

Before you apply your takedown, you have to control your opponent's arm/arms first. If you can do that, your opponent's "internal enetgy" will have no effect on you.

In the following 2 clips, they control rheir opponent's arm by "reverse arm drag".

The couter should be "how to deal with your opponent's arm drag?" and not "how to use your internal energy?"

Is there "internal" way to deal with arm drag and external way to deal with arm drag? I don't think so.

There is an external and internal way. It's expressed in different arts in a complementary teaching modality.

Tai Chi describes them in terms of things like tree stances, sinking the qi, Bagua does it a little differently in terms of directional qi, but basically similar, and that distinguishes them external techniques that aren't in those arts, but are in, for example, Hung Ga or Jow Ga Kuen (where is Jow Ga Wolf anyway?).

In a Taijiquan and Bagua context, everything is internal, and internal in this context is the power the central torso (the lowest dan tian), with upper body and arm forming a strong frame (i.e. not collapsing). But all throws are done with legs and waist power driving the throw.

In Hung Ga Kuen, there are "external" arm drags that are very long-range with a wide range of motion, like Monkey Steals Peach below. They do not utilize close range power at all, but gravity, similar to sacrifice pulls. This might look "internal" but it's not classified that way in Hung Kuen. This is an arm breaking arm drag, there's a big step involved in executing it, so it requires a lot of room to use (this picture below is the end result of the whole technique, so you can't see the step, but it starts in the opposite direction with an arm drag that ends in a lock/break).

Visibly, there's a big difference. The internal arts look more like wrestling, the external arts more like boxing, even though most schools really do both. The end result is basically the same, but they are definitely taught differently in different schools. Both will tell you to tuck your pelvis in just the same.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There is an external and internal way. It's expressed in different arts in a complementary teaching modality.

This is why the anti-takedown can be a good example to check whether "internal" or external can make any difference here.

When your opponent drags your arm and runs behind you, whether your resist or yield, both counters are wrong.

The proper counter for arm drag is to move in through a particular angle which has nothing to do with "internal" or external.

The anti-takedown is like to find the right key to open the right lock. There exist no master key that can open all locks.

 

[Oily Dragon]

This is why the anti-takedown can be a good example to check whether "internal" or external can make any difference here.

When your opponent drags your arm and runs behind you, whether your resist or yield, both counters are wrong.

The proper counter for arm drag is to move in through a particular angle which has nothing to do with "internal" or external.

The anti-takedown is like to find the right key to open the right lock. There exist no master key that can open all locks.

Shuai Jiao is an art that kind of synthesizes both internal and external concepts into a continuum the way you're describing, to look at things from both perspectives combined. Shuai Jiao grappling techniques can be found in a ton of CMA styles (being some of the oldest of all techniques), whether or not they actually train san da with them (plenty do). And they look Judo-like, because physics are physics.

The BJJ dudes also generally seem to understand the catch concept of takedown defense when doing things like sprawling, so that's a good art to observe if you really want to see what works and what doesn't. From my perspective BJJ would have fallen into the internal schools, since they emphasize using the core of the body and legs to drive the opponent around (especially on the ground), with the arms utilized for control as much as possible rather than as hammers. There's that whole "use technique, not strength" argument again, but I think the BJJ peeps really have mastered that whole problem.

There was a long time where people seemed to dismiss the term "anti-takedown" as if it wasn't a thing. It's definitely a thing, wrestling has taught it for thousands of years. I think it had something to do with certain TMA claiming that they'd stuff takedowns with things like 12-6 elbows and spinning out of the way.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Some people may think that

borrow force = use "internal" energy.

The term "resisted opponent" has a negative meaning today. It encourages to use "force against force". When your opponent pushes you, if you also push back. Even if your push may overcome your opponent's push. Your method is still wrong. When your opponent pushes you, you should borrow his force and pull him instead.

Some "internal" people think they are the only people who know how to borrow force. In wrestling, borrow force is just basic lesson 101.

 

[Steve]

Shuai Jiao is an art that kind of synthesizes both internal and external concepts into a continuum the way you're describing, to look at things from both perspectives combined. Shuai Jiao grappling techniques can be found in a ton of CMA styles (being some of the oldest of all techniques), whether or not they actually train san da with them (plenty do). And they look Judo-like, because physics are physics.

The BJJ dudes also generally seem to understand the catch concept of takedown defense when doing things like sprawling, so that's a good art to observe if you really want to see what works and what doesn't. From my perspective BJJ would have fallen into the internal schools, since they emphasize using the core of the body and legs to drive the opponent around (especially on the ground), with the arms utilized for control as much as possible rather than as hammers. There's that whole "use technique, not strength" argument again, but I think the BJJ peeps really have mastered that whole problem.

Be careful or you'll be pigeonholed as a BJJ fan boy.

There was a long time where people seemed to dismiss the term "anti-takedown" as if it wasn't a thing. It's definitely a thing, wrestling has taught it for thousands of years. I think it had something to do with certain TMA claiming that they'd stuff takedowns with things like 12-6 elbows and spinning out of the way.

It's funny how connotation can be so important in English. Anti-takedown, like anti-grappling, was a sort of shorthand for styles that were trying to shoehorn a response to BJJ and other grappling styles. When folks use these terms, it's a bit of a red flag... sort of a "oh, here we go again" thing.

Versus takedown defense, which is what most people say.

Even though, to an outside person, the phrases "anti-takedown" and "takedown defense" seem synonymous, they connote very different things. So, all that to say, I think wrestlers (and other grapplers) teach takedown defense, not anti-takedowns.

It's kind of like when people type jiu jitsu or jujutsu... whether intentional or not, the two words suggest very different things.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A: Should I train iron palm, or should I train iron vest?
B: If you train iron palm, you will beat up people for the rest of your life. If you train iron vest, people will beat you up for the rest of your life.

A: Should I train takedown, or should I train anti-takedown?
B: If you train takedown, you will take people down for the rest of your life. If you train anti-takedown, people will try to take you down for the rest of your life.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The BJJ dudes also generally seem to understand the catch concept of takedown defense when doing things like sprawling, so that's a good art to observe if you really want to see what works and what doesn't. From my perspective BJJ would have fallen into the internal schools, since they emphasize using the core of the body and legs to drive the opponent around (especially on the ground), with the arms utilized for control as much as possible rather than as hammers. There's that whole "use technique, not strength" argument again, but I think the BJJ peeps really have mastered that whole problem.

Speaking as a (primarily but not exclusively) BJJ guy, when I see well done "internal power" it just looks like regular good technique to me. My only objection is when certain instructors overhype it by demonstrating with demo dummies who feed them attacks with sloppy technique and crappy structure and then over-cooperate with the technique so that it ends up looking like the teacher can reliably and effortlessly tie them into knots or throw them across the room with minimal movement.

I have that issue occasionally with my own students when I'm demoing a technique for the class. Obviously the demo partner should allow me to show the movement without fighting, but sometimes they end up over-cooperating and I have to tell them not to take a dive for me or twist themselves into a knot trying to make me look good.

Besides the importance of not giving the instructor a swelled head, this is also important in order to set realistic expectations for a technique. For example last week I was showing a counter to the Muay Thai style double-collar tie. For some reason my demo partner kept trying to hang on to the position even once I had totally disrupted his structure and so (just for fun) I showed how that gave me the opportunity to take his back and take him down with a choke. I emphasized that this was an unlikely best-case scenario and that realistically the opponent would probably let go once their position was compromised and reset their position or pummel for a better grip. But when I set the class to drilling, everybody was focusing on trying to run around to their opponent's back for the cool looking finish rather than practice the more likely outcome. So I had to tell them to stop feeding their training partners the unlikely energy and just reset once their grip was broken.

The second video looked like any typical Judo randori session to me, unless I'm missing something. If it's staged, it's a good staging. If Tai Chi dudes want to go pull with judoka, god bless em.

I don't have any insider knowledge on that event, but I have my suspicions that there was some staging to make the Tai Chi instructor look good. The reason is that the judoka didn't utilize any of the setups (kuzushi, grip fighting, combination attacks) that I would expect him to use in a serious judo match. He just tried to force the throws directly from the clinch without setup, which isn't going to work well against someone with a really good base.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the judoka didn't utilize any of the setups (kuzushi, grip fighting, combination attacks) that I would expect him to use in a serious judo match.

I feel the same way about that video too. Onetime in the park I played with a Taiji guy. I dragged his arm around, his body just responded the same way as any external MA guy would do.

IMO, the term "internal energy" has vey little meaning in wrestling.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A: Should I train iron palm, or should I train iron vest?
B: If you train iron palm, you will beat up people for the rest of your life. If you train iron vest, people will beat you up for the rest of your life.

A: Should I train takedown, or should I train anti-takedown?
B: If you train takedown, you will take people down for the rest of your life. If you train anti-takedown, people will try to take you down for the rest of your life.

That makes no sense at all. Why would anyone train any of this in isolation? When I train strikes, I also train counters. When I train grappling, I also train counters. I mean, it sounds very Wise Old Man on a Mysterious Mountain and all, but it's actually a silly proposition.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Watched the first video. I think the positive thing I can say about it is that underhooks are definitely useful.

Here's what I would say is a more technically sound demonstration of the same concepts from the first video:

It's the same idea, but he's defending against a properly executed takedown, and he's doing it in a way that doesn't rely on magic.

First video below, the guy is standing tall and his hands are at his side. The other guy is hunched over, legs straight, no elevation change at all, and is charging in head first. He's also got his arms flung out to the side inviting the double underhooks.

View attachment 28425

In the picture below (from the video in this post), the person is protecting himself, and the bad guy is dropping his elevation, keeping his head back and executing a technically sound double leg. He's also not flinging his arms out to the side.

View attachment 28426

Because the guy in the first video was so high, it is very easy to get the underhooks without even bending your knees.

View attachment 28427

But in this case, the guy gets the underhooks, but is also dropping his center of gravity by bending his knees and shooting his hips back. He's not quite sprawling at this point, but could easily do that if needed from this position.

View attachment 28428

I agree with most of your analysis, except the very first issue you mention. The hands being low at the beginning.

I think that's useful to practice sometimes-if someone comes and tackles you when you're not already in guard, how quickly can you move your hand to position. Similar to how people practice weapon draws, it's worth trying from different positions.

That said, in the video itself the actual issue with his hands is his uke. His uke does the 'takedown' in a way that "hands at side" is the perfect position. It almost looks like he's trying to wrap his elbows. That's the problem there, not the demo-er having his hands down.