I'm sorry, but this whole "Anti-Grappling" thing horrifies me

[JowGaWolf]

So. Then. Just the mythology of your style. Like when bjj guys say they can compete in Mma without cross training.
Your position represents just another example of anti grappling at its finest.

I'm sure the wc anti grapplers train hard too. Doesn't mean any if it will work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jow Ga and WC are not the same. From what I can tell from seeing other WC fighters they try to punch their way out of a grab or a shoot. In Jow Ga our anti-grab techniques aren't based on punching. All of the techniques that I know involve us to use our hands in a non-punching, grappling manner to either escape or counter. Some our techniques are the same that some wrestlers and BJJ practitioners use. So if those methods and techniques are considered mythology and useless then they are equally as useless in the other other martial arts such as BJJ, Judo, Tai Chi, and karate that uses them including non-martial arts wrestling.

What amazes me is that people think Chinese martial arts don't have grappling or anti-grappling techniques, as if since the very birth of Kung Fu that none of the Kung Fu practitioners, warriors, and soldiers were never grabbed, and that someone would create a fighting system with the mindset that the attacker would never try to grab, tackle, or get on top of victim to do harm. In other words not 1 person in china from the 17th century BC to present day thinks that someone would do that. Even with all of the wars that were going on.

So as old as these fighting systems are the founders thought that it would never happen and as a result had no reason to address grappling.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Some throws does not require any "clinch".

When you move one leg behind your opponent's "both" legs, with your upper body rotation, you can take your opponent down without any "clinch".

When you obtains your opponent's leading leg, if you just hook on his back standing leg, he will be down. You don't need "clinch" on this either.

I understand this. I think I have a video of me doing a similar move like that during a sparring session.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.

If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.

Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.

If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.

When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.

And so on...

The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.

Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.

Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.

This is why we (my school) trains with another martial arts school who knows how to grapple and uses it often to fight. It doesn't make sense to train anti-grappling techniques by having strikers trying to grab you.

 

[JowGaWolf]

One advantage to grappling is that closing the distance in a fight is easier than backpedaling. Even if you have the skill and open space to backpedal, it's very hard to strike effectively while moving backwards. (It can be done, but it's an advanced skill and not reliable.)

I understand this. My sifu understands this which is why he will always get onto his students if they backpedal. Backpedaling will just make things worse especially if the person is a grappler.

Speaking as a grappler, I also would have no problem with attacking the groin or eyes or fingers (or even biting) in a real self-defense situation if the circumstances required it

This is a good thing, that means that in a real self-defense situation you are less likely to put those things in range for someone to attack those areas.

I can guarantee that experienced MMA fighters, especially those with a grappling background, understand the limitations of grappling at a much deeper level than you do - yet they still get taken down.

MMA fighters often have grappling skills that will allow them to win the fight on the ground (I don't know of any that don't) so for them the ground game is an option to victory meaning that it's ok for them to be taken to the ground. For the fighting style I train, it's not ok to be on the ground so our efforts in training is geared towards not being on the ground or escaping if we are on the ground. Most MMA fighters will stay on the ground and work the ground game so to them it doesn't matter if someone takes them to the ground. The Gracies have shown their willingness to be on the ground. They don't try to out stirke the strikers because their strength is in the ground game.

 

[drop bear]

Am I the only one that seems to think of it like this.

If I want to stand up against a fighter that wants to stick me to the ground the only way to expect to get up is by training more than my opponent ever done in a scenario where people keep me down while I try to stand.

Secondly if they train more on keeping me down than I do trying to get up from ground, then my hope is that I have trained longer on sticking to ground than him.

If he is better than me in all those scenarios then I train harder in not following any rules in trying to get my opponent to disengage than he ever has defending against such opponent.

When all that fails well then I train harder than my opponent in taking a beating and hope somehow I can find an opening and get away anyways.

And so on...

The curse of WC, even if we understand that nothing is gained without practise we start trying to practise getting up straight away from ground scenario. Succeeding in doing this we failed the most important lesson. Our opponent needs to first understand and desire to keep us on the ground before we can learn together with them how to best get up.

Training with another WC guy means non are comfortable and therefore the practise becomes irratic and odd. This is when crazy ideas may be born which will work for the trained scenario of two fighters which neither want to stay on ground. Meaning BJJ will laugh against any anti grappling attempts because it is only meant to work when both fight to get up or away before the other.

Same is the curse for other arts as well, even BJJ. Train all day in takedown against opponent that want to fall and you would fail just as bad. Same goes as trying to do takedowns against an opponent that does not know how to fight standing up. A scenario that is easier since most people have some basic albeit somewhat flawed understanding of punching.

There is crazy stuff in bjj and even mma that you can do to noobs that you wouldn't do to anybody with grappling skill.

One example is guillotine to guard which almost never works. But at one stage there was a main component of takedown defence.

The reason there is that for ages nobody really defended the move and just flailed around.

So my point is that sometimes you can get an unrealistic idea of what works and what dosent due to the people you train with.

 

[drop bear]

This is why we (my school) trains with another martial arts school who knows how to grapple and uses it often to fight. It doesn't make sense to train anti-grappling techniques by having strikers trying to grab you.

Top grapplers are top anti grapplers. Just like top boxers are also good at avoiding being hit. Part of the game yeah?

Now top grapplers get taken down more than twice in their lifetime.

So you either have a defence that is better than everybody else. And nobody has thought of.
Or.
The guys taking you down are not very good.

 

[drop bear]

MMA fighters often have grappling skills that will allow them to win the fight on the ground (I don't know of any that don't) so for them the ground game is an option to victory meaning that it's ok for them to be taken to the ground. For the fighting style I train, it's not ok to be on the ground so our efforts in training is geared towards not being on the ground or escaping if we are on the ground. Most MMA fighters will stay on the ground and work the ground game so to them it doesn't matter if someone takes them to the ground. The Gracies have shown their willingness to be on the ground. They don't try to out stirke the strikers because their strength is in the ground game.

OK only if you follow the Gracie module. I do mma and have moved more into folkstyle wrestling because it has a strong component of anti grappling

 

[Steve]

There is crazy stuff in bjj and even mma that you can do to noobs that you wouldn't do to anybody with grappling skill.

One example is guillotine to guard which almost never works. But at one stage there was a main component of takedown defence.

The reason there is that for ages nobody really defended the move and just flailed around.

So my point is that sometimes you can get an unrealistic idea of what works and what dosent due to the people you train with.

I always think of the Frankenstein choke. Never seen it work on anyone whose trained longer than a few weeks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Top grapplers are top anti grapplers

To me the Top Grapplers out Grapple others grapplers. The top boxers out box other grapplers. An anti-grappler is some who doesn't want to grapple. An anti-striker is someone who doesn't want strike. The term Anti means against. So in that light, any person who doesn't want to take a fight to the ground in the form of wrestling is Anti-Grappler.

Top grapplers are taken down multiple times because the ground game is their strong suit. They aren't against wrestling or grappling. They thrive in it, so they can't be an Anti-grappler and a grappler at the same time. Remember Anti-means against. When MMA and BJJ guys fight they want the fight on the ground because they know that they can out grapple someone. For me to get on the ground with them would be me fighting against my opponents strengths. Why would I do that?

My defense isn't better than anyone else. I respect the strengths of the grappler by not trying to fight a fight within his strengths. MMA fighters will try to win a fight on the ground if they think they have a chance of winning it on the ground. For me, I have no interest in winning a fight on the ground even if I think I can win it. For my mindset and my training there's no reason me to be on the ground AT ALL. MMA fighters will ground in pound. Ground and pound is not an option for me.

My defense against someone who is trying to take me down to the ground is to lower the zone in which they have to shoot, which gives me more options to redirect their energy. By lowering my stance I'm forcing them to shoot lower than what they should be shooting, this helps to keep my waist away from them. I also work on quick feet movement and techniques that prevent them from closing their grabs by tying up one arm. If I can cause a delay in them being able to close their arms or hands around me then I have added more time for me to escape.

MMA, BJJ, Judo, and some other fightng styles are all about the grab and taking the fight to the ground to out grapple their opponent. Anti-Grapplers don't want to be on the ground so training how to not be on the ground takes priority over training to win a fight on the ground.

 

[drop bear]

I always think of the Frankenstein choke. Never seen it work on anyone whose trained longer than a few weeks.

I have been known to try to sneak on a standing gooseneck from time to time.

 

[drop bear]

To me the Top Grapplers out Grapple others grapplers. The top boxers out box other grapplers. An anti-grappler is some who doesn't want to grapple. An anti-striker is someone who doesn't want strike. The term Anti means against. So in that light, any person who doesn't want to take a fight to the ground in the form of wrestling is Anti-Grappler.

Top grapplers are taken down multiple times because the ground game is their strong suit. They aren't against wrestling or grappling. They thrive in it, so they can't be an Anti-grappler and a grappler at the same time. Remember Anti-means against. When MMA and BJJ guys fight they want the fight on the ground because they know that they can out grapple someone. For me to get on the ground with them would be me fighting against my opponents strengths. Why would I do that?

My defense isn't better than anyone else. I respect the strengths of the grappler by not trying to fight a fight within his strengths. MMA fighters will try to win a fight on the ground if they think they have a chance of winning it on the ground. For me, I have no interest in winning a fight on the ground even if I think I can win it. For my mindset and my training there's no reason me to be on the ground AT ALL. MMA fighters will ground in pound. Ground and pound is not an option for me.

My defense against someone who is trying to take me down to the ground is to lower the zone in which they have to shoot, which gives me more options to redirect their energy. By lowering my stance I'm forcing them to shoot lower than what they should be shooting, this helps to keep my waist away from them. I also work on quick feet movement and techniques that prevent them from closing their grabs by tying up one arm. If I can cause a delay in them being able to close their arms or hands around me then I have added more time for me to escape.

MMA, BJJ, Judo, and some other fightng styles are all about the grab and taking the fight to the ground to out grapple their opponent. Anti-Grapplers don't want to be on the ground so training how to not be on the ground takes priority over training to win a fight on the ground.

Go have a look at the video.

 

[JowGaWolf]

OK only if you follow the Gracie module. I do mma and have moved more into folkstyle wrestling because it has a strong component of anti grappling

When you do MMA, is there a grappling fighting style that you turn to like BJJ or Judo? I ask because I know that the MMA guys are more rounded fighters than those who only practice striking.

 

[drop bear]

When you do MMA, is there a grappling fighting style that you turn to like BJJ or Judo? I ask because I know that the MMA guys are more rounded fighters than those who only practice striking.

The fighting style is mma. The hitting on the deck changes the dynamics a bit.

For us we are leaning towards that folkstyle with submissions. But there are bits and pieces from every where.

 

[Jake104]

So who's likely to win that battle? The grappler or the non grappler?

Chuck Norris! He always wins. Now what???

 

[Jake104]

If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?

 

[Hanzou]

If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?

Sakuraba is a grappler.

And so is Chuck. He is a black belt in Bjj under the Machado brothers.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If Chuck is busy, Sakuraba?

When fighting you always fight against your opponents weakness.
If your opponet's weakness is in his legs then you attack the legs. If they are weak in the area of endurance then you attack their endurance. Attacking a weakness can be done by both grappler an non-grappler. If you fighting against your opponents strength then you are at high risk of losing. If you fight where you are weak, then you are going to lose.

The Sakuraba vs Royler Gracie fight is a good example of this. Sakuraba fought Royler where he was weak, which resulted in 2 minutes of damaging striking attacks. Here striking wins

Here is another example of fighting someone where they are weak. Here Grappling wins.

There is no set rule or guarantee that grappler will beat a non-grappler or that a non-grappler will beat the grappler. There are more than enough videos showing strikers who KO grapplers just as there are more than enough videos showing grapplers submitting strikers. If you fight where you are weak then you'll lose. If you fight where your oppoent is weak they they will lose.

 

[Steve]

I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out. I wouldn't mind seeing a few. typically, as in the example of Sakuraba, the "striker" is actually a well rounded fighter who is competent in both striking and grappling.

Which brings us full circle back to the topic of anti-grappling. The best "anti-grapplers" are just competent grapplers who are also competent strikers. Style is irrelevant. Wing Chun anti-grappling, at least the examples shared in this thread, are dangerously misguided.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out.

When a grappler gives up his striking ability, he will not exchange punches with his striking opponent, his hands can guard his head nicely, it's difficult to knock him out.

It's easy to have the following test.

- If you can hit on your opponent's head (no need to knock your opponent down, a punch will be just fine), you win that round.
- If your opponent can get you into a successful clinch before you can land a punch on his head (body punch won't count in this test), he wins that round.

Test this for 15 rounds, record the result. Repeat this testing for 100 times (15 x 100 = 1500 rounds) and then draw your own conclusion.

 

[Drose427]

I actually haven't seen very many videos of strikers knocking grapplers out. I wouldn't mind seeing a few. typically, as in the example of Sakuraba, the "striker" is actually a well rounded fighter who is competent in both striking and grappling.

Which brings us full circle back to the topic of anti-grappling. The best "anti-grapplers" are just competent grapplers who are also competent strikers. Style is irrelevant. Wing Chun anti-grappling, at least the examples shared in this thread, are dangerously misguided.

When I've seen it happen(specifically in the Early UFC's, where sumo and wrestling was fairly common) they basically just swarmed the grappler to all hell. Grappler would grab something, get hit and lose it. It was one thing that and Royce stand out, for the most part he'd get rocked and still hold on to whatever he had for dear life.

Its happened a few times in modern MMA, but thats a poor representation cause now guys are at least competent in both areas. Their grappling might be atrocious, but its enough that they wont put themselves in bad positions