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

[JowGaWolf]

I don't know if rolling makes a difference but normally we don't defend double overlooks because you can step out to defend it.

Rolling wouldn't be a defense to the shoot for many kung fu styles because it prevents the use of effecting striking. For example, that roll prevents the person from throwing an uppercut to the face or an elbow strike to the head. If a person wanted to avoid the shoot with the purpose of striking the face with a fist, knee, or elbow after successfully defending the shoot, then that roll isn't going to be best defense to use to position yourself to follow up with those attacks.

 

[drop bear]

Rolling wouldn't be a defense to the shoot for many kung fu styles because it prevents the use of effecting striking. For example, that roll prevents the person from throwing an uppercut to the face or an elbow strike to the head. If a person wanted to avoid the shoot with the purpose of striking the face with a fist, knee, or elbow after successfully defending the shoot, then that roll isn't going to be best defense to use to position yourself to follow up with those attacks.

The overhooks (thank you spell checker) would be a late phase counter. So you are already past the point where you could have hit them.

Cross face overhook sprawl. Is the best basic method. And you can strike from there if the opportunity presents.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Have you seen Capitan Alatriste? OK it's only a movie, but historically, better than average...

Check out what's going on in the pike battle from about 3:00 to 4:00. You will see soldiers crawling under the pikes and fighting on their hands and knees.I don't know if you'd call it grappling or not. It's certainly ground-fighting though. You can find similar instances happening in battles from other periods, such as in WWI trench warfare.

This makes sense to me from a fighting perspective. If the enemy grabs your pike and holds tightly to it then you are no longer able to use that pike to stab someone else. This would allow other soldiers to advance through the pike. Pikes, staffs, and spears are long range fighting weapons. They lose their advantage when a person attacks inside their fighting range. You can think of it as shooting underneath a long range weapon.
This is a long sword competion. Noctice what happens at (0:59)

 

[JowGaWolf]

The overhooks (thank you spell checker) would be a late phase counter. So you are already past the point where you could have hit them.

exactly

 

[Hanzou]

I'm the one laughable? You are the one trying to tell me about the fighting system I train in, and the effectiveness of its grappling and anti-grappling techniques. None of which do you know, practice, or seen put to work against people who grapple. But I guess you have trained under the same lineage as I have so that's why you know more about Jow Ga grappling and ant-grappling techniques more than me.

What I've seen are Jow Ga practitioners performing anti-grappling. You say that somehow you're particular version of Jow Ga is different, and that school is performing anti-grappling "wrong", yet you provide no evidence to support any of your statements. So on one side I have evidence, and the other side I have no evidence. What am I supposed to believe? Am I supposed to believe that Jow Ga (like so many TMA styles) have poor anti-grappling, and use evidence from an actual Jow Ga school to support that claim? Conversely, am I supposed to believe that somehow your particular style has somehow "cracked the code" of grappling, and that you're some sort of expert at stopping takedowns?

One is far more likely than the other.

There technique at (Mark 1:54) is the technique that is used for defending against the shoot. That's the one that should have been used. If you don't see the technique or understand how it could work then that's because you don't train in Jow Ga. You can either believe what I say or you can continue to tell me about about a technique you have never used.

Ah, so you're pulling your anti-grappling from a form?

This is the last response that I'll make to you in reference to grappling.

Don't worry, we're done here.

 

[Phobius]

Conversely, am I supposed to believe that somehow your particular style has somehow "cracked the code" of grappling, and that you're some sort of expert at stopping takedowns?

One is far more likely than the other.

Grappling is older than many other types of fighting, so to believe that the solution to grappling has existed in most of them for a very long time is not far fetched. Stating otherwise would be same as someone stating that no grappler would have the solution to punching. After all noone knew how to punch back in the days when everyone knew how to do grappling. *Ironic*

We are all so eager to believe that we and we alone hold some secret techniques that noone else knows about but in all honesty there are only so many good ways to handle a situation. And people have throughout the ages explored all different possibilities of killing one another.

Ah, so you're pulling your anti-grappling from a form?

This statement is kind of rude. In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed. It is like a way to help remember your style and not forget some parts after several years of training. My opinion of form but still... Kung Fu form is not kata, kata is not a form.

 

[Hanzou]

Grappling is older than many other types of fighting, so to believe that the solution to grappling has existed in most of them for a very long time is not far fetched. Stating otherwise would be same as someone stating that no grappler would have the solution to punching. After all noone knew how to punch back in the days when everyone knew how to do grappling. *Ironic*

Except grappling has evolved over time, and is continuing to evolve at a very rapid pace thanks to the sharing of knowledge from various grappling disciplines and the rise of grappling sports and MMA. So while a Chinese martial artist may have figured out how to stop a grappler from his area of China hundreds of years ago, you can't say that his solution to grappling can magically apply to the modern state of grappling in MMA and Bjj.

We are all so eager to believe that we and we alone hold some secret techniques that noone else knows about but in all honesty there are only so many good ways to handle a situation. And people have throughout the ages explored all different possibilities of killing one another.

If that were the case, you wouldn't have this thread, where Wing Tsun exponents come up with nonsensical ways to stop grappling. Their techniques against grappling would be sound, since grappling has always existed, and surely a WT (or Jow Ga) master would have discovered a solution to dealing with them. The reality is that grappling has evolved far beyond what ancient martial artists in China or other areas encountered, which is why they have to come up with modern solutions in dealing with it. You're not going to find the solution of stopping a modern takedown in a hundred year old Kung Fu form. If you try, you're going to end up like that Tai Chi guy who got smashed by the BJJ white belt in the vid I posted earlier.

This statement is kind of rude. In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed. It is like a way to help remember your style and not forget some parts after several years of training. My opinion of form but still... Kung Fu form is not kata, kata is not a form.

See above. The idea that centuries-old Kung Fu or Karate forms somehow have the knowledge necessary in dealing with constantly evolving and adapting styles is pure fantasy. Again, we see the folly of this idea with the origin of this thread; Wing Tsun anti-grappling, and we saw it again with that horrible display of Jow Ga anti-grappling I posted later.

 

[Phobius]

See above. The idea that centuries-old Kung Fu or Karate forms somehow have the knowledge necessary in dealing with constantly evolving and adapting styles is pure fantasy. Again, we see the folly of this idea with the origin of this thread; Wing Tsun anti-grappling, and we saw it again with that horrible display of Jow Ga anti-grappling I posted later.

My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.

Problem is that teachers and students alike fail to understand that they need to know how to do a proper takedown before they can train how to avoid such a takedown. Otherwise they can pick randomly anything from a form and use that to their advantage. Given the amount of movements in a form, the amount of ways to apply such movement, mixed with the amount of different footwork available. There are a million different possible theories of how to solve grappling problematic. Only one or two might be the correct ones. You will not find those using theory but through live practise.

Since most fail doing proper training their technique does not hold to pressure and when added to YouTube people may complain wildly about it.

Not saying all styles have perfect or even good solution, but they do have some solution. The rest is up to amount of training.

Also grappling is not the magical pill either, the neck is one of those spots in my opinion that feels very bare in many such scenarios. Might not stop a grappler but if it would, the risk involved in being hit badly would still make me try to protect that area with my life at stake.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In kung fu the form is like a library of movements. A form does not say anything about application, only teaches your body and muscle to do the movement correctly when needed.

This is exactly the correct explanation of a form.

 

[Tez3]

This is exactly the correct explanation of a form.

I don't think it will matter how many times you explain your style, minds are made up that it will never be as good as BJJ. Any mention of forms/kata/patterns etc receive scornful comments because in those minds they are useless. I think you'll just have to take satisfaction that you know what you are talking about, it's sad that some feel the need to style bash. I know nothing about your style but genuinely interested martial artists with open minds are always willing to listen to others so you can be sure that there's others who don't agree with the now constant disrespecting attitudes you are encountering.

 

[Hanzou]

My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.

While it isn't rocket science, it is a science. That means that it requires science, not faith and old wive's tales, to counter it.

Problem is that teachers and students alike fail to understand that they need to know how to do a proper takedown before they can train how to avoid such a takedown. Otherwise they can pick randomly anything from a form and use that to their advantage. Given the amount of movements in a form, the amount of ways to apply such movement, mixed with the amount of different footwork available. There are a million different possible theories of how to solve grappling problematic. Only one or two might be the correct ones. You will not find those using theory but through live practise.

Again, if that were the case, we'd be seeing examples of successful grappling counters coming from those sources. We don't see that. Instead we see that hideous Jow Ga display that I posted earlier, or that Wing Tsun anti-grappling nonsense in the beginning of the thread.

The ones who are serious about neutralizing modern grappling actually learn modern grappling.

Since most fail doing proper training their technique does not hold to pressure and when added to YouTube people may complain wildly about it.

Its not about bad technique. It's about using outdated concepts in a modern application. Its like going into a gunfight with a musket when everyone else is using an AK-47. You'll probably do some damage, but 9 times out of 10 you're completely doomed.

Also grappling is not the magical pill either, the neck is one of those spots in my opinion that feels very bare in many such scenarios. Might not stop a grappler but if it would, the risk involved in being hit badly would still make me try to protect that area with my life at stake.

No one is saying that grappling is invincible. MMA guys from striking styles counter MMA guys from grappling styles all the time. However, they do that by learning grappling and countering it completely in order to give their striking a better chance to succeed. Again, if we were to believe that forms had that secret locked in them, no one would waste time learning grappling, they would simply study forms endlessly to come up with solutions. The fact that no one does that, and the fact that there's no pure Kung Fu guys in MMA or anywhere else breaking grapplers apart with ancient forms, kind of proves my point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't think it will matter how many times you explain your style, minds are made up that it will never be as good as BJJ. Any mention of forms/kata/patterns etc receive scornful comments because in those minds they are useless. I think you'll just have to take satisfaction that you know what you are talking about, it's sad that some feel the need to style bash. I know nothing about your style but genuinely interested martial artists with open minds are always willing to listen to others so you can be sure that there's others who don't agree with the now constant disrespecting attitudes you are encountering.

You are right. Sadly enough it's a missed opportunity where some learning and constructive discussion could have been started on the various ways there are to defend against the shoot. We could have discovered what works, which techniques are more risky, and things that people should be aware of when defending against grappling in general. People could have shared their personal experience and lessons learned when dealing with the shoot.

 

[Hanzou]

You are right. Sadly enough it's a missed opportunity where some learning and constructive discussion could have been started on the various ways there are to defend against the shoot. We could have discovered what works, which techniques are more risky, and things that people should be aware of when defending against grappling in general. People could have shared their personal experience and lessons learned when dealing with the shoot.

Except we already know how to defend against the shoot. We already know what works, and which techniques are more risky.

The only thing we learn from CMA "anti-grappling" is that it's the opposite of how to properly defend against grappling.

 

[Jake104]

The ones who are serious about neutralizing modern grappling actually learn modern grappling.

Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.

So, Sat. I was doing standing clinch work with a college level wrestler. We were working a standard switch. I forgot what they call it. Basically from a clinch there right arm snakes over my right bicep locking my shoulder. Then from there you can take down or transition into other stuff. So in the transition I felt his forward energy go away. So I was able to stop the "technique" with my "chi sao" forward energy and, then I was able to rear naked choke from that position. Did I ever learn that sequence of "techniques" or "counters"? Nope! I did learn how to properly sink a choke in. But I can do that choke many different ways. It was demonstrated to me in one specific scenario . But I was smart enough to realize what I was being shown was and "idea" not a "technique".

 

[Hanzou]

Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.

If you're training with grapplers, and are learning their tactics and mechanics, you are learning modern grappling.

 

[Jake104]

If you're training with grapplers, and are learning their tactics and mechanics, you are learning modern grappling.

Oh, ok thanks.

 

[Jake104]

Sometimes I hang out with friends who do computer programming, and engineering. Hopefully I am learning those things too?

It's not what you know, it's who you know. Awesome!

 

[drop bear]

Yes and no. Yes I train with grapplers and yes I like to learn what tactics or mechanics are being used. But No, I don't need to learn grappling as a separate art. I'm more interested in the commonalities that already exist between martial arts. Like good base/ root, structure and energy etc.

So, Sat. I was doing standing clinch work with a college level wrestler. We were working a standard switch. I forgot what they call it. Basically from a clinch there right arm snakes over my right bicep locking my shoulder. Then from there you can take down or transition into other stuff. So in the transition I felt his forward energy go away. So I was able to stop the "technique" with my "chi sao" forward energy and, then I was able to rear naked choke from that position. Did I ever learn that sequence of "techniques" or "counters"? Nope! I did learn how to properly sink a choke in. But I can do that choke many different ways. It was demonstrated to me in one specific scenario . But I was smart enough to realize what I was being shown was and "idea" not a "technique".

Yeah this is where it gets tricky. You are going to have overlaps and many of them will be valid but then some of the concepts get thrown out the window due to evidence based training as well.

So you have what works. What feels right and what is part of your accepted principles of fighting. And they are not always the same thing.

This will also change depending on the fighter.

So what you are describing there is in part your individual game as much as a stylistic difference.

 

[Phobius]

Again, if we were to believe that forms had that secret locked in them, no one would waste time learning grappling, they would simply study forms endlessly to come up with solutions.

So to learn a language you just sit down and study a dictionary (not a translated one at that, after all that is where the training and self experience comes in) until the end of time?

Studying a form would be like reading the words of another language to yourself over and over. Trying to use a technique from a form would be like picking a word and guessing what it means before putting it in a sentence. Without grammar or even a slight hint of its actual meaning the likelyhood of it being the correct word would be very slim to none.

That is what training is for. You should have known this being a martial artist yourself.

 

[drop bear]

My opinion is that it is not so much that grappling has evolved in terms of takedown. Lets be honest here, it is not rocket science to develop proper takedown technique using logic or trial and error.

We have a much larger sample to work with these days though.