From Black belt Magazine

[TKDTony2179]

Black Belt: Is the way you fight a grappler different from the way you fight a striker?

Official Gene LeBell Fan Page: "You always go for what you consider his weakness. You attack or counterattack his weakness, no matter if he’s a wrestler or karate man."



Benny Urquidez: "Absolutely. If somebody kicks and punches at me, I redirect the movement, either clockwise or counterclockwise, [to] get away from his movement. If he comes*forward, I move at a 45-degree angle; that way I’m out of his line of fire. From that point, as soon as he strikes, I parry it or deflect it. For every mistake he makes, I take advantage of it."Usually a grappler needs to grab hold of me first. The key to [avoiding] that is to keep something in his face. Most grapplers are not used to seeing a fist come at their face, so they duck their head and reach to grab your legs. I like to go side to side so, as long as I have my hand in his face, I’m blinding him. From that point, I have my choice: jump on his back, side-kick his joints or [throw an] uppercut since he can’t see what I’m doing. I can also use elbows and knees to the face. The problem is that, when it’s happening quickly, you have to be able to respond to it. If you have to think about it, it’s too late.

Both seem to be right but one is more in depth with strategy. What do you guys and gals think?

 

[lklawson]

Black Belt: Is the way you fight a grappler different from the way you fight a striker?

Official Gene LeBell Fan Page: "You always go for what you consider his weakness. You attack or counterattack his weakness, no matter if he’s a wrestler or karate man."

Yes, and? The advice is generic in the extreme. You always play to your strengths and exploit his weaknesses. Even if you're both exercising exactly the same skill set. TKD vs TKD, Judo vs Judo, or BJJ vs Muay Thai, whatever. If I'm working with a guy in a Bowie sparring session and I know he's good at back-cuts but I am good at hand-snipes, I'll try to use a strategy to minimize his opportunity to back-cut while maximizing my opportunity to snipe. Of course, he's going to be doing the same too so it comes down to a number of factors. Is one easier to achieve than the other just by nature of the technique? Is one fighter more skilled, talented, physically favored, or lucky?

Benny Urquidez: "Absolutely. If somebody kicks and punches at me, I redirect the movement, either clockwise or counterclockwise, [to] get away from his movement. If he comes*forward, I move at a 45-degree angle; that way I’m out of his line of fire.

Which is fine unless the puncher uses a Modern Boxing skill set which minimizes the ability to triangle step because of it's short-range punches and footwork.

From that point, as soon as he strikes, I parry it or deflect it.

Just like the boxer will try to do to you.

For every mistake he makes, I take advantage of it.

What if he doesn't make any mistakes but you do?

"Usually a grappler needs to grab hold of me first.

Which is usually pretty easy to do.

The key to [avoiding] that is to keep something in his face. Most grapplers are not used to seeing a fist come at their face, so they duck their head and reach to grab your legs.

Except for the ones who are familiar with getting hit in the face. It's common as dirt to cross-train and MMA is extremely popular. Lots and lots of "grapplers" know how to take a punch, aren't intimidated one little bit by the thought of getting a smooshed nose (because they get them regularly enough in training), and can kick and punch well.

I like to go side to side so, as long as I have my hand in his face, I’m blinding him.

You don't need to see particularly well to charge in and barnacle on to someone. Even eating a few shots on the way in doesn't really negate the ability to do so.

From that point, I have my choice: jump on his back, side-kick his joints

Doesn't work for crap.

or [throw an] uppercut since he can’t see what I’m doing.

Better, but still going to fail more than succeed.

I can also use elbows and knees to the face.

Neither will work against someone just trying to charge in to clinch. They cover up at the head to prevent elbows and fists, taking it on the arms, and they're not bent over so knees don't connect with anything (not even the groin).

The problem is that, when it’s happening quickly, you have to be able to respond to it. If you have to think about it, it’s too late.

No. The way you deal with someone who charges to clinch is to know stand-up grappling, clinch-fighting/in-fighting (boxing), or both.

Both seem to be right but one is more in depth with strategy. What do you guys and gals think?

LeBell is an old Judoka and Wrestler who also knows how to box. He knows what he's doing. The advice given above, attributed to him, is too general to address your specific question.

The statements attributed to Urquidez range from mediocre-but-in-the-realm-of-possibility to completely unworkable.

The way you deal with someone crashing standing defense to clinch is to make them eat a shot on the way in and hope they've got a glass jaw, then to in-fight and know standing grappling. The way to deal with someone who shoots for a single or double is to sprawl then either grapple for the ground in a superior position (granted by a successful sprawl) or disengage quickly, stand back up, and get distance. It's not likely that you can kick them during disengagement after sprawl and it's really unlikely to be able to knee or elbow the opponent while he shoots. If you can, he's doing it wrong.

There are others, of course, but those are the basics.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Takai]

When were those statements made? Things have changed rapidly in just the last 10 years as far as cross training. I would put those statements into the proper context by looking at when they were actually made.

 

[TKDTony2179]

When were those statements made? Things have changed rapidly in just the last 10 years as far as cross training. I would put those statements into the proper context by looking at when they were actually made.

I don't know. Just saw it on FB. Does seem like a old question before mma right.

 

[Takai]

I don't know. Just saw it on FB. Does seem like a old question before mma right.

Or at least before it became prolific.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Which is fine unless the puncher uses a Modern Boxing skill set which minimizes the ability to triangle step because of it's short-range punches and footwork.

Just like the boxer will try to do to you.

Benny the Jet Urquidez was largely undefeated as a professional fighter and kickboxer for 27 years. I'm pretty sure he could handle a boxer, even a modern one.

Which is usually pretty easy to do.

And not too difficult to avoid/defend.

Doesn't work for crap.

Side kicks to joints work perfectly fine when done correctly.

No. The way you deal with someone who charges to clinch is to know stand-up grappling, clinch-fighting/in-fighting (boxing), or both.

That is just one way.

The way you deal with someone crashing standing defense to clinch is to make them eat a shot on the way in and hope they've got a glass jaw, then to in-fight and know standing grappling. The way to deal with someone who shoots for a single or double is to sprawl then either grapple for the ground in a superior position (granted by a successful sprawl) or disengage quickly, stand back up, and get distance. It's not likely that you can kick them during disengagement after sprawl and it's really unlikely to be able to knee or elbow the opponent while he shoots. If you can, he's doing it wrong.

That appears to be the MMA way of doing things, there are many ways to avoid a takedown that don't involve retreating backwards or going to the ground that can enable you to knee or elbow them that don't appear in it because of the rules.

 

[lklawson]

Benny the Jet Urquidez was largely undefeated as a professional fighter and kickboxer for 27 years. I'm pretty sure he could handle a boxer, even a modern one.

I know who he is. I recall watching some of his kickboxing matches on TV. I'm telling you that the advice above attributed to him ("If somebody kicks and punches at me, I redirect the movement, either clockwise or counterclockwise, [to] get away from his movement. If he comes*forward, I move at a 45-degree angle;") won't work against a modern boxer. Because Urquidez is also a bit of a boxer, I suspect that he knows that. I believe that the given quote isn't being presented in the context that it was originally intended.

And not too difficult to avoid/defend.

Actually, yes, it IS difficult to prevent someone grabbing a hold of you.

Side kicks to joints work perfectly fine when done correctly.

Not against a shoot for a single or double, it doesn't.

That is just one way.

The way that actually works. Unless you're going to start deploying weapons.

That appears to be the MMA way of doing things, there are many ways to avoid a takedown that don't involve retreating backwards

"Retreating backwards"???? What the heck are you talking about?

or going to the ground that can enable you to knee or elbow them that don't appear in it because of the rules.

Oh, good heavens, not that old "Sport Fighter" chestnut again.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Not against a shoot for a single or double, it doesn't.

Not in that situation during the actual shoot no, but when the opportunity presents itself it does.

The way that actually works. Unless you're going to start deploying weapons.

"Retreating backwards"???? What the heck are you talking about?

The majority of the defences (especially the unsuccessful ones) against double leg takedowns involve some manner of backwards movement (the sprawl for example) moving laterally out of the way is a good option.

 

[lklawson]

Not in that situation during the actual shoot no, but when the opportunity presents itself it does.

Then it doesn't address the situation that he claimed because he specifically said, "grappler ... reach to grab your legs." They do that with a shoot to single or double or, at the very odd time, an Irish Pick.

The majority of the defences (especially the unsuccessful ones) against double leg takedowns involve some manner of backwards movement (the sprawl for example) moving laterally out of the way is a good option.

What? That's not right. A sprawl is not a backwards movement, regardless of what it may look like to you. It's a downward movement. "Moving laterally" does not get you out of the way of a shoot.

 

[RTKDCMB]

What? That's not right. A sprawl is not a backwards movement, regardless of what it may look like to you. It's a downward movement.

Kinda looks as though his legs are moving backwards in some manner, but then what do I know.

 

[lklawson]

Kinda looks as though his legs are moving backwards in some manner, but then what do I know.

I know it looks like the legs move backwards. Look at the entirety of the body, not just the legs. His center-point stays the same distance, even moving a bit closer sometimes.

The sprawl is a downward movement, not backwards.

 

[Takai]

I know it looks like the legs move backwards. Look at the entirety of the body, not just the legs. His center-point stays the same distance, even moving a bit closer sometimes.

The sprawl is a downward movement, not backwards.

Then why does he say that he kicks his leg back? You achieve your"downward" movement by moving your leg back. This is what keeps your center-point in the same position. If you just move down you would be squatting. That changes your center-point down and is an entirely different movement.

But then, what does Ortiz know anyways?

 

[lklawson]

Then why does he say that he kicks his leg back? You achieve your"downward" movement by moving your leg back. This is what keeps your center-point in the same position. If you just move down you would be squatting. That changes your center-point down and is an entirely different movement.

He says that because moving the legs is not the same thing as moving the whole body as you are trying to imply. Moving the legs does not imply "moving backwards" any more than cocking the arm back for a punch does.

But then, what does Ortiz know anyways?

He knows that a sprawl is not "backwards movement" no matter what you want to claim. The body stays at the same place on the mat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk (mobile)

 

[Takai]

He says that because moving the legs is not the same thing as moving the whole body as you are trying to imply. Moving the legs does not imply "moving backwards" any more than cocking the arm back for a punch does.

I don't think that you actually read what I wrote. I never implied that the body moved back. I even stated that the center-point stayed the same. The argument was that the legs never moved backward. Which they do.

He knows that a sprawl is not "backwards movement" no matter what you want to claim. The body stays at the same place on the mat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk (mobile)

Once again see above statement.

 

[geezer]

I don't think that you actually read what I wrote. I never implied that the body moved back. I even stated that the center-point stayed the same. The argument was that the legs never moved backward. Which they do...

OK so you and Kirk agree. So do I. No argument then, so let's move on.

Personally, I'm fascinated by how much fighting strategies have changed just in the time I've been involved in MA. I began in the 70s, but dropped out in the early 90s before BJJ and other combative grappling methods had become so dominant. When I got back into MA around 2007-8 there had been a radical change in the way people fought. I had to re-assess many of my personal strategies ...especially with regard to grappling. In the 80s in WC we were taught to counter a shoot by maintaining our upright stance and punching the shooter's face as he came in or dropping a downward elbow onto the back of his neck or spine. Even back then it didn't work very well ...and that was against a compliant training partner who really didn't know how to shoot.

As a former wrestler I was unconvinced. Coming back into the system 15 or 16 years later I saw that my doubts had been well founded. Fortunately, a number of upper level people in my art had dramatically improved their approach. I'm a bit long in the tooth myself to seriously take up BJJ or another combative grappling system, but I'm a big advocate of cross training. The limited exposure I've had has made me really rethink my WC.

To get back to the OP, if I can identify an opponent's preference re kicking, boxing or grappling, it absolutely affects my approach. In the most general terms, I close-in tight on kickers, open up with lower leg attacks on boxers, and stay a bit further outside, avoiding the clinch with grapplers ...and pray that I can play my game better than the other guy. When all else fails, I'm really good at tapping out ...or begging for mercy!

 

[Takai]

OK so you and Kirk agree. So do I. No argument then, so let's move on.

Agreed.

Personally, I'm fascinated by how much fighting strategies have changed just in the time I've been involved in MA. I began in the 70s, but dropped out in the early 90s before BJJ and other combative grappling methods had become so dominant. When I got back into MA around 2007-8 there had been a radical change in the way people fought. I had to re-assess many of my personal strategies ...especially with regard to grappling. In the 80s in WC we were taught to counter a shoot by maintaining our upright stance and punching the shooter's face as he came in or dropping a downward elbow onto the back of his neck or spine. Even back then it didn't work very well ...and that was against a compliant training partner who really didn't know how to shoot.

As a former wrestler I was unconvinced. Coming back into the system 15 or 16 years later I saw that my doubts had been well founded. Fortunately, a number of upper level people in my art had dramatically improved their approach. I'm a bit long in the tooth myself to seriously take up BJJ or another combative grappling system, but I'm a big advocate of cross training. The limited exposure I've had has made me really rethink my WC.

To get back to the OP, if I can identify an opponent's preference re kicking, boxing or grappling, it absolutely affects my approach. In the most general terms, I close-in tight on kickers, open up with lower leg attacks on boxers, and stay a bit further outside, avoiding the clinch with grapplers ...and pray that I can play my game better than the other guy. When all else fails, I'm really good at tapping out ...or begging for mercy!

It really is something to see the progressive change in MA as MMA, BJJ, etc have gained prominence. The things that we used to take for granted become a weakness if we do not adapt. Grappling has certainly become much more than a "flavor of the month" and flat out ignoring that is a detriment to ones journey, imho.

 

[lklawson]

I don't think that you actually read what I wrote. I never implied that the body moved back.

You're right, you didn't imply that, RTKDCMB did when he wrote in regards to the sprawl, "there are many ways to avoid a takedown that don't involve retreating backwards."

The joys of posting mobile. Mea Culpa.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

In the 80s in WC we were taught to counter a shoot by maintaining our upright stance and punching the shooter's face as he came in or dropping a downward elbow onto the back of his neck or spine. Even back then it didn't work very well ...and that was against a compliant training partner who really didn't know how to shoot.

Like you said, evolution of the art. That strategy had a (small) chance of working a few centuries ago and right on up until the end of the 19th Century and early parts of the 20th (pre-WWI). Then the single/double were often performed bent over without the shooter's knee(s) touching the ground.


Even in old school Judo (morote gari)

View attachment $morotegari.gif

But it's not the 19th Century any longer, it's the 21st and that's not how it's done any longer:


Why has it changed? I'm not entirely sure but I, personally, believe that it probably has to do with the rise of wrestling mats which make it safer to the thrower's knee for practice repetitions. But that's just my speculation.

As a former wrestler I was unconvinced.

As well you should have been. That you were taught this in WC lends a bit of credibility to the theory that WC was, in truth, developed as a response to western boxing and wrestling methods.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[RTKDCMB]

You're right, you didn't imply that, RTKDCMB did when he wrote in regards to the sprawl, "there are many ways to avoid a takedown that don't involve retreating backwards."

The joys of posting mobile. Mea Culpa.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Just to be clear I did not even mention the sprawl until after I made that statement ("'retreating" was probably the wrong word, I should of said "moving") so that was not referring to the sprawl. When I mentioned the sprawl, the operative phrase is "in some manner", that does not imply that the whole body movement is backwards, only the part that is trying to be grabbed (the legs).