Full Head Control vs. Untrained

[Juany118]

I don't think the Muay Thai clinch is the best first move and it seems that's where the discussion of it has headed as if 2 people get into a fight and the first move is to layout a Muay Thai Clinch. I think that's where the confusion may be but I could be wrong about how others may be seeing it. For me I see a Muay Thai clinch being deployed when someone attacks with punches and the punches get tangled and from there the clinch would be used.

I would completely agree with this. I have no issue with the Thai clinch after the fight has progressed to a certain point. Whether it be the circumstance you note or the simple fact that when a fight has progressed to a certain point where in you can have a degree of certainty that the opponent doesn't have a knife to pull.

 

[drop bear]

The above is not "story driven" martial arts but techniques used by PROVEN martial arts like Filipino Kali (unless you consider it's success against insurgents and separatists as the hand to hand system of the Force Recon Marines of the Phillipines "story driven")

Just quickly yes. Thats story driven. Like the krav is the best because the idf or all the fight i have won because of my lucky red t shirt.

It is nice but not really a a justification

 

[drop bear]

Hey look, your out of context stuff again. I responded numerous times saying the following.

1. as you engage maintaining situational awareness so you can watch elbows and knees. if you practice proper scanning this also lets you see the hands and waist band.

2. if you want to grapple, and grappling does work, don't go into a clinch that limits #1. Go for control of an arm. If you go for the right arm 90% of the population will not be able to stab or slash, if you are faster they won't even be able to draw because 90% of the population is right handed. Then with the proper arm bar (like I said none of that fancy one handed crap), you get in as superior a position as the clinch (in terms of control) for striking, though the strikes are to different areas. You can still strike with kicks to the knees, achillies tendon (both of which can easily disable the opponent) etc or knee the subject, or you can take the person down on their face and you are then in perhaps the most dominant position period.

The above is not "story driven" martial arts but techniques used by PROVEN martial arts like Filipino Kali (unless you consider it's success against insurgents and separatists as the hand to hand system of the Force Recon Marines of the Phillipines "story driven") and Jujutsu. Since you have liked these guys in the past go to 1:10 for but one example of what I am talking about.

That said these techniques from FMA also work BUT there is a BIG difference between what you see in this video, than the video you linked earlier. If you find yourself in a knife fight without a weapon you must use footwork and the footwork is a lot "wider" than what you use in an unarmed fight. The lack of widening your footwork is the biggest problem I see with many "unarmed" fighting systems. The video you linked earlier showed very little foot work which exacerbated the issues of the questionable techniques.

I can and have transitioned to hammerlocks from plumb. So that Gracie defence is doable from a thai clinch.

I don't have to forgo a clinch to have that knife progression.

Watched the other one and look yeah for knife but really nah for unarmed. You can't effectively chase hands. You do it with a knife because you are not really given the choice.

Otherwise none of that gives me the same tools as the clinch. Which is the ability to counter combination striking and deliver unopposed effective shots.

 

[Juany118]

Just quickly yes. Thats story driven. Like the krav is the best because the idf or all the fight i have won because of my lucky red t shirt.

It is nice but not really a a justification

Well the difference is we have documentation not just that it is trained by but that it was and is used by. It has been verified that Filipino Guerillas, as an example, used their Bolos in Jungle fighting against the Japanese, yes usually to obtain a firearm but in a Jungle, especially at night, it is possible to close and engage in hand to hand combat. It is also much like HEMA in that it was THE way to fight for warriors. It was effective enough to prevent the Spanish from ever taking full control of all the Philippine islands (most notably Mindanao.)

These aren't mere stories they are documented Historical Facts. That their aren't YouTube videos means of actual combat means little and it is interesting how you dodged the actually substance of that post and again engaged in your typical cherry picking in a vain attempt to continue a defense.

See the way one really defends a point isn't to simply attack the other by cherry picking statements out of context, it's by providing evidence that supports your point. Instead you make fiat statements and cherry pick.

 

[drop bear]

Well the difference is we have documentation not just that it is trained by but that it was and is used by. It has been verified that Filipino Guerillas, as an example, used their Bolos in Jungle fighting against the Japanese, yes usually to obtain a firearm but in a Jungle, especially at night, it is possible to close and engage in hand to hand combat. It is also much like HEMA in that it was THE way to fight for warriors. It was effective enough to prevent the Spanish from ever taking full control of all the Philippine islands (most notably Mindanao.)

These aren't mere stories they are documented Historical Facts. That their aren't YouTube videos means of actual combat means little and it is interesting how you dodged the actually substance of that post and again engaged in your typical cherry picking in a vain attempt to continue a defense.

See the way one really defends a point isn't to simply attack the other by cherry picking statements out of context, it's by providing evidence that supports your point. Instead you make fiat statements and cherry pick.

The above is a flat statement without evidence. Now cool your jets turbo. Read the post above yours.

 

[Juany118]

I can and have transitioned to hammerlocks from plumb. So that Gracie defence is doable from a thai clinch.

I don't have to forgo a clinch to have that knife progression.

Watched the other one and look yeah for knife but really nah for unarmed. You can't effectively chase hands. You do it with a knife because you are not really given the choice.

Otherwise none of that gives me the same tools as the clinch. Which is the ability to counter combination striking and deliver unopposed effective shots.

The thing is though in that clinch you likely won't know the knife is deployed until you have already been stabbed at least once. Going for the limbs first or going for the clinch after you have a degree of certainty that the subject is not armed is far safer and, to be honest, intelligent.

 

[Juany118]

The above is a flat statement without evidence. Now cool your jets turbo. Read the post above yours.

Google "history of the Philippines" and you will see that my comment regarding Spain never completely subduing Mindanao is a Historic fact. They even went to the extent of outlawing it's practice. Eskrima

You will see FMA was what Killed Magellan .Battle of Mactan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You will also see the use of FMA and various blades documented as being used against the Japanese, especially again, by the Moros of Mindanao. Heck the US Military documented a defeat of their own at the hands of Bolo wielding FMAers... Battle of Pulang Lupa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So FMA works...period. Simply because you chose to ignore history doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

 

[drop bear]

Google "history of the Philippines" and you will see that my comment regarding Spain never completely subduing Mindanao is a Historic fact. They even went to the extent of outlawing it's practice. Eskrima

You will see FMA was what Killed Magellan .Battle of Mactan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You will also see the use of FMA and various blades documented as being used against the Japanese, especially again, by the Moros of Mindanao. Simply because you chose to ignore history doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

See now that is evidence.

Of course my mate says that doesn't work on the street so it is irrelevant.
(And if you find that infuriating. Then welcome to my world.)

 

[drop bear]

The thing is though in that clinch you likely won't know the knife is deployed until you have already been stabbed at least once. Going for the limbs first or going for the clinch after you have a degree of certainty that the subject is not armed is far safer and, to be honest, intelligent.

Just catch that limb grab it. Secure the guy up huh?

I mean there really are not that many guys who have a high success rate doing that.

That clinch and knee opportunity is there a lot. On the streets.

 

[Red Sun]

*raises my hand, enthusiastically*
I've watched a bunch of videos of knife murders, knife attacks, and knife fights. I can spam you with links if it'll prove something, and i'm allowed to link th LiveLeak, theYNC, and BestGore.

-> The survival rate is low.
-> When folks do survive, it's usually because the assailant gives up and runs away.
-> This is usually a result of wild flailing and crappy wrestling.
-> You don't get the luxury of deciding where/how the fight takes place.
-> There's not alot of pre-contact cues, and even if there was it'd still happen.
-> Running away usually doesn't work (...this may be sampling bias.)

*In Rory Miller's "Scaling Force", there's an account of a palm strike being used against a knife attack. I've also seen a video of a Chechen picking someone up and throwing them after being jabbed in the stomach with a knife. These are the exceptions, and not the rule.

Why use history (which is abstract) when you can use CCTV footage (which is direct)?

It'd just be nice if we could debate the use of a muay thai clinch against the possibility of a knife without having to talk about FMA history

Otherwise, i can be insensitive and cruel and say: "I wonder if they used FMA skills to wrap those drug dealers heads in duct tape, shoot them, stab them, and leave them to rot on the side of the road? I wonder if some of those rotting corpses had eskrima training..."

In reality, we react intuitively and hopefully it all works out. In training, we have the luxury of debating whether we want to grab him behind the head, over the arms, under the arms, trap/lock the arm... So, let's go back to doing *that*. Plz

I maintain that if we end up grabbing someone behind the head, it's best to drag them around and hit them as hard as we can and throw them away.

 

[Red Sun]

I don't even think i'm physically capable of putting someone in a plum, so take it for what it's worth (almost nothing.)

 

[Juany118]

Just catch that limb grab it. Secure the guy up huh?

I mean there really are not that many guys who have a high success rate doing that.

That clinch and knee opportunity is there a lot. On the streets.

No not just a "limb grab" I showed you two videos of the techniques. that would work and I think we can both agree that they are more than a simple "grab". You have to apply legit control techniques.

 

[Juany118]

*raises my hand, enthusiastically*
I've watched a bunch of videos of knife murders, knife attacks, and knife fights. I can spam you with links if it'll prove something, and i'm allowed to link th LiveLeak, theYNC, and BestGore.

-> The survival rate is low.
-> When folks do survive, it's usually because the assailant gives up and runs away.
-> This is usually a result of wild flailing and crappy wrestling.
-> You don't get the luxury of deciding where/how the fight takes place.
-> There's not alot of pre-contact cues, and even if there was it'd still happen.
-> Running away usually doesn't work (...this may be sampling bias.)

*In Rory Miller's "Scaling Force", there's an account of a palm strike being used against a knife attack. I've also seen a video of a Chechen picking someone up and throwing them after being jabbed in the stomach with a knife. These are the exceptions, and not the rule.

Why use history (which is abstract) when you can use CCTV footage (which is direct)?

It'd just be nice if we could debate the use of a muay thai clinch against the possibility of a knife without having to talk about FMA history

Otherwise, i can be insensitive and cruel and say: "I wonder if they used FMA skills to wrap those drug dealers heads in duct tape, shoot them, stab them, and leave them to rot on the side of the road? I wonder if some of those rotting corpses had eskrima training..."

In reality, we react intuitively and hopefully it all works out. In training, we have the luxury of debating whether we want to grab him behind the head, over the arms, under the arms, trap/lock the arm... So, let's go back to doing *that*. Plz

I maintain that if we end up grabbing someone behind the head, it's best to drag them around and hit them as hard as we can and throw them away.

The problem is most people don't actually train in how to address a knife. The entire point of my argument is that it all starts with having adequate situational awareness first and foremost. Then, if you actually train in knife defense you have a shot. If you don't you are screwed. However, even if you train in knife defense, if you open with techniques that limit such awareness you may well not be able to even attempt to use said training until you have already taken some solid hits.

 

[drop bear]

No not just a "limb grab" I showed you two videos of the techniques. that would work and I think we can both agree that they are more than a simple "grab". You have to apply legit control techniques.

We are solving two different problems. One does not really adress the issues of the other.

To solve both issues you would need to transition from one to another.

You have started knife out. Which is a different game.

 

[Juany118]

See now that is evidence.

Of course my mate says that doesn't work on the street so it is irrelevant.
(And if you find that infuriating. Then welcome to my world.)

If it works in war it works on the street, it's a simple fact. Fighting for your life is fighting for your life. Same as MMA. It works in the ring, it will work on the street, the trick is to use the appropriate techniques. Some FMA techniques, are impractical for the street because how often might someone have a 20+ inch baton or a ginunting (filipino short sword/machete) on their person in civilian life as they walk down the street?

The last bit is usually because people look at tapping drills and Hubud, Sinawali etc and assume that is how you fight. It isn't. They are simply drills designed to demonstrate principles, help cultivate hand speed, learn the different footwork transitions and the like. The last is, imo, one of if not THE most important bit. Unlike a lot of other Martial Arts range isn't simply a matter of bridging from no contact>kicking>punching>trapping>grappling range. Range is also a function of long, medium and short as it related to whether or not you and/or your opponent is armed, with what (if armed) and what techniques are being used (if armed) because all of these have an impact on reach.

That said the actual application in training is VERY different. It is taught using different drills and then is largely developed/refined in free sparing, that can be painful. I have woken up with a swollen hand because I screwed up and a training knife managed to hit between the pads of the gloves with a solid thrust, had bruises that made the wife less than thrilled because I took a hit from the sparring sticks (the padding is pretty thin on em) etc.

 

[Juany118]

We are solving two different problems. One does not really adress the issues of the other.

To solve both issues you would need to transition from one to another.

You have started knife out. Which is a different game.

The thing is though if you use techniques, to start, that preserve situational awareness you can see the knife when it does come out and if it doesn't, after a certain point, you have a high degree of confidence one is not in play. If it's the former, you can address the knife or (best case scenario) prevented it from being drawn by already being in control of the limb that could have deployed it. In the later case, if you are good at it, do the Thai clinch and go to town on them .

The above essentially encapsulates my argument.

 

[Juany118]

Why use history (which is abstract) when you can use CCTV footage (which is direct)?

Missed this the first time around History is not abstract. To be abstract is to be theoretical or lacking in concrete existence. History is anything but, rather it is the record of events that actually occurred. Various wars happened, the weapons and techniques used in said wars happened. They are facts not abstract theories. All a CCTV camera does is provide another way of recording and storing past events, aka a new modern method of recording History.

The reason for the lack of CCTV footage is simply this.

1. the number of people who study martial arts is small. In the US, as an example, it's roughly 5% of the population (current population is over 318 million the article sites a study noting 18.1 million study Martial arts)
2. the number of martial arts that focus on techniques that make for potentially effective knife defense is even smaller than that
3. the number of instructors that focus on said techniques is even smaller.
4. it takes a fair amount of training to be able to pull off the techniques, if taught, and the ability to not allow your fear of the knife make you "lock up"
5. the penetration of CCTV cameras is far from universal, I think the UK has the highest penetration
6. CCTV footage that does exist often doesn't make it to YouTube due to privacy concerns.

So we have footage of people using MAs when attacked but of all the footage of people being attacked what % is that really? Then you add in the factors above regarding training and really the chances of such a video being captured are pretty slim to practically nil.

So you then look to History documented by other means.

 

[drop bear]

The thing is though if you use techniques, to start, that preserve situational awareness you can see the knife when it does come out and if it doesn't, after a certain point, you have a high degree of confidence one is not in play. If it's the former, you can address the knife or (best case scenario) prevented it from being drawn by already being in control of the limb that could have deployed it. In the later case, if you are good at it, do the Thai clinch and go to town on them .

The above essentially encapsulates my argument.

Exept hand trapping and grabbing doesn't address punches and kicks all that well. So you raise your risk of getting bashed before that knife ever appears.

And it doesn't take a heap of shots to put you in trouble.

You will find almost nobody ever pulls that stuff off consistently. In a live environment.

 

[drop bear]

Viiew from the thai grapple.

 

[Juany118]

Exept hand trapping and grabbing doesn't address punches and kicks all that well. So you raise your risk of getting bashed before that knife ever appears.

And it doesn't take a heap of shots to put you in trouble.

You will find almost nobody ever pulls that stuff off consistently. In a live environment.

If you turn the "grab" into a legitimate "lock"/armbar, as I have repeatedly said, as you see in the Gracie video I posted as but one example, the person is not going to be in a position to strike you (unless they use a counter technique to escape) but you are in a position to strike them. It is really not anymore difficult than setting up an effective Thai Clinch, the only difference is what you are locking up and locking up the limb. As an example there is a standing version of the cutting armbar that can be very effective. It requires use of footwork, and typically a strike of some sort to set up BUT remember the premise of this thread as well...vs. Untrained.