Fighting strategy

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm not saying that it's a bad strategy to run someone down, I'm just pointing out that there are many practical ways to deal with it, but it has to be drilled and most people don't drill it.

The day when the ground game start to get popular, the day that nobody want to train "run down" strategy.

The "knee seize" is also a good way to run your opponent down.

You use

- one hand to push on your opponent's shoulder (guide his leading arm to jam his back arm),
- the other hand to pull his leg behind knee joint (guide his leading leg to jam his back leg),

you can then run him down safely.

 

[Flying Crane]

The day when the ground game start to get popular, the day that nobody want to train "run down" strategy.

Did you see an actual correlation? I don’t compete and I don’t watch competitions, so in that context I would have no idea.

As a self defense strategy I see it as definitely viable, depending on circumstances.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Did you see an actual correlation? I don’t compete and I don’t watch competitions, so in that context I would have no idea.

As a self defense strategy I see it as definitely viable, depending on circumstances.

Mobility and ground game contradict to each other.

 

[Flying Crane]

Mobility and ground game contradict to each other.

Ok, what are you getting at? In competition? I thought mma folks, for example, strive for a solid standup striking game as well as a solid takedown and ground grappling game. How does this contradict?

Outside of a competition format you do what works, if you need to defend yourself. There are no rules about what contradicts or is otherwise compatible.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you do what works,

The training method are different. Unless you train both ways, you won't develop skill in both methods.

1. Take your opponent down and remain balance. You try not to let your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist and pull you down.

2. Take your opponent down and continue your ground game. You don't care if your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist and pull you down.

 

[Flying Crane]

The training method are different. Unless you train both ways, you won't develop skill in both methods.

1. Take your opponent down and remain balance.

2. Take your opponent down and continue your ground game.

I don’t understand how this is relevant to your previous comment, that when ground game became popular, nobody wanted to train a rundown game.

I certainly train a rundown game. I am not nobody. What is the context for your previous statement? Is a competition? A specific type of competition? Self-defense? I am trying to understand how you justify that statement and in what context it would be accurate.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don’t understand how this is relevant to your previous comment, that when ground game became popular, nobody wanted to train a rundown game.

I certainly train a rundown game. I am not nobody. What is the context for your previous statement? Is a competition? A specific type of competition? Self-defense? I am trying to understand how you justify that statement and in what context it would be accurate.

I'm talking about self-defense. You take down your opponent, you then take off (instead of playing game with him on the ground).

In order to be able to "take off", you have to remain your balance and also not to be pulled down by your opponent. You may have to select your contact points more carefully (such as not to allow your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist).

This is why to guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm, and guide his leading leg to jam his back leg are good contact points for running him down.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm talking about self-defense. You take down your opponent, you then take off (instead of playing game with him on the ground).

In order to be able to "take off", you have to remain your balance and also not to be pulled down by your opponent. You may have to select your contact points more carefully (such as not to allow your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist).

This is why to guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm, and guide his leading leg to jam his back leg are good contact points for running him down.

Ok, I think this makes sense for you, given your background. I don’t believe it supports your previous statement that nobody wants to train a rundown strategy once the ground game became popular.

I know the ground game became popular within the context of mma type competitions. I have no idea if it is “popular” in a self-defense context, and whether or not that did or would have an effect on a charge/rundown strategy. I don’t believe that the typical thug or assailant is a highly trained mma or BJJ competitor so I think the statement is suspect. They may be a fanboy who likes to watch the competitions on PPV, but that means nothing to any actual skills that they may possess. I would certainly not change my own tactics based on the notion that an assailant may have watched MMA on the TV.

I and the lineage to which I belong trains a charging strategy. We find it to be useful and effective. I also seem to be pretty good at getting through life without needing to defend myself. Violence, so far, doesn’t seem to find me. So take that for what it’s worth. I don’t see anything to suggest that the popularity of grappling on TV has systematically caused people in the martial arts world to abandon a rundown/charging strategy, when it is intelligently applied.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Ok, what are you getting at? In competition? I thought mma folks, for example, strive for a solid standup striking game as well as a solid takedown and ground grappling game. How does this contradict?

It's been better over the years. The big weakness of a ground game is that you have to get the person on the ground first, and based on a lot of the MMA fights I've seen lately, it appears that the fighters understand this weakness. Fighters are good at 2 things now. 1. Escaping attempts to put them on the ground 2. Escaping the ground when they are on the ground.

It used to be that we used to see ground submissions every time. But now fighters are better at defending against the submissions. From what I can tell there has definitely been a shift towards the stand up game only because the ground game often stalemates. From what I can tell, it's not as easy to get those submissions anymore.

I don’t believe that the typical thug or assailant is a highly trained mma or BJJ competitor so I think the statement is suspect. They may be a fanboy who likes to watch the competitions on PPV, but that means nothing to any actual skills that they may possess. I would certainly not change my own tactics based on the notion that an assailant may have watched MMA on the TV.

I had to change my tactics because of the popularity of fighting on the ground and doing submissions. I would be foolish not to factor that in. Again the chances of me fighting another martial artist is slim. BJJ or Kung Fu. I just don't think our training programs our mindset that way. Most of the displays of martial arts fights in the streets that we see on video is usually against someone untrained.

I don't know if it's because 2 trained fighters would easily see that they are train fighters early in the yelling match phase or if "thugs" can't tell the difference because they haven't been formally trained. They always seem to get in over their heads in terms of fighting martial artists (I'm talking about the ones that spar and fight, and not the martial art tag sparring.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The training method are different. Unless you train both ways, you won't develop skill in both methods.

1. Take your opponent down and remain balance. You try not to let your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist and pull you down.

2. Take your opponent down and continue your ground game. You don't care if your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist and pull you down.

I don’t see those as contradictory. Each is a variation on the other. If you don’t manage to stay afoot when throwing, you’d better have some ground game to at least fight your way back to your feet.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Violence, so far, doesn’t seem to find me. So take that for what it’s worth.

That's a win in my book. In terms of self-defense I would rather learn from someone who has been in fights and has a good understanding of how things escalate and what it's like to be in a fight. But the second part of that is, if the guy is still getting into fight in his 30's and 40's, then I'm not going to have a lot of faith in his self-defense ability.

In terms of self-defense I rather not be in a fight, or a lengthy argument. I rather be that person who no one (including criminals) bother. If the self-defense is so good that the person is never in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the right place at the wrong time, then that's who I want to learn from.

If a person is good at avoiding bad situations because they can see it coming or they can do things to make it less likely to happen to them, then I want to learn from that person. If a person has 20 stories about being robbed or being in a fight at the age of 30 or 40, then it's very clear that self-defense isn't his strong suit. The guy who has had 5 cars stolen from him through out his life is probably not the person you want to talk to about how to keep your car from being stolen.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don’t see those as contradictory. Each is a variation on the other. If you don’t manage to stay afoot when throwing, you’d better have some ground game to at least fight your way back to your feet.

This is exactly what we see in a lot today's MMA matches. This is more along my game plan, which is to always make my opponent start from scratch. If my opponent closes the gap then I want to make it so that he has to try to constantly close the gap, while maintaining my ability to close and increase the gap at will. If my opponent grabs me, then I want to escape (or counters) so that he always has to start over to attempt to grab me. If my fate is Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I lose. Then I want to make sure that I keep my opponent around Steps 1 and 2 for as long as possible or until thing change where the last step is I win.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Through out this conversation I see that I have different view of the terms "Run down"
"Run down" is not appealing to me but "Overwhelming" someone feels like a better fit to me because it's something that can be done without trying to "Run down."

What are you guys thinking of when you say "Run down"?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What are you guys thinking of when you say "Run down"?

When both you and your opponent are standing on 1 leg, whoever has forward momentum will win.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When both you and your opponent are standing on 1 leg, whoever has forward momentum will win.

Now I understand where the confusion is

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Now I understand where the confusion is

Which is?

You have to move forward faster than your opponent's moving backward. If your opponent can move back faster than your moving forward, he can lead you into the emptiness (kiss the ground).

In other words, you want to run your opponent down when he has weak rooting. If he has strong rooting, it's not the proper time to do so.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's a win in my book. In terms of self-defense I would rather learn from someone who has been in fights and has a good understanding of how things escalate and what it's like to be in a fight. But the second part of that is, if the guy is still getting into fight in his 30's and 40's, then I'm not going to have a lot of faith in his self-defense ability.

In terms of self-defense I rather not be in a fight, or a lengthy argument. I rather be that person who no one (including criminals) bother. If the self-defense is so good that the person is never in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the right place at the wrong time, then that's who I want to learn from.

If a person is good at avoiding bad situations because they can see it coming or they can do things to make it less likely to happen to them, then I want to learn from that person. If a person has 20 stories about being robbed or being in a fight at the age of 30 or 40, then it's very clear that self-defense isn't his strong suit. The guy who has had 5 cars stolen from him through out his life is probably not the person you want to talk to about how to keep your car from being stolen.

Then I’m your man!

 

[JowGaWolf]

You have to move forward faster than your opponent's moving backward. If your opponent can move back faster than your moving forward, he can lead you into the emptiness (kiss the ground).

This isn't my perception of "Run Down" I can shuffle forward once and accomplish the same thing. I can also attack at an advancing speed that is fast enough to keep the striking distance the same and slow enough so that my opponent doesn't feel the need to flee.

In other words, you want to run your opponent down when he has weak rooting. If he has strong rooting, it's not the proper time to do so.

The way that I define Run Down I would say.

"You want to overwhelm your opponent when he has weak rooting,"

The last one is a really good example how he closes the gap and continues to unleash combos.

1:09 1 quick shuffle forward that moves faster than the opponent is moving backwards, but he doesn't run over him.

IYou and I have a different definition of "Run Down" so right off from the start we won't have agreement on the "Term" which make it looks like we disagree. But the things that you've stated, I don't have problems with. I only don't consider it "Running down"

 

[JowGaWolf]

Then I’m your man!

Then when you have a self-defense class I'll send them your way lol. I might have a few family members that could use your lessons lol.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Let's discuss a different strategy - lead your opponent into the emptiness, create an opening, and attack the opening.

- You throw a right jab. Your opponent uses right arm to block to his right (your left).
- Before your opponent's right arm contacts on your right arm, you pull your right jab back, and change it into a right hook.

I like the idea that you let your opponent to

- block into the thin air.
- open himself up by his own blocking.

Your thought?