Old Martial Arts techniques.

[Steve]

If I thought you had steel toe boots or shoes then I would be in a more mobile stance from the beginning. Any boot or boot like shoe that I see, I automatically assume that it could be steel toe and therefore, I will take a different approach.

I don't fight people in boots the same way I fight people in sneakers. These are things that I take note of before or during. For example, every confrontation I've had except for 2. I was able to have enough time during the confrontation to take note of what they were wearing. I don't know about anyone else, but in the U.S. I'm always doing a visual check for guns and other possible weapons. I take note of belt buckles, and the mobility of their pants. This happens while the person is yelling and verbally assaulting me.

So, then all a wrestler would need to do is wear steel toe shoes, and he's defeated your low stance!

 

[JowGaWolf]

So, then all a wrestler would need to do is wear steel toe shoes, and he's defeated your low stance!

Pretty much. The low stance puts my lead leg in a vulnerable position. It's not the best position to defend against kicks to my leg. But if you are kicking my leg then that means you aren't trying to shoot in on, it means you are trying to kick my leg, then I would come out of the low stance as it wouldn't be needed and get into another stance that will allow me to better deal with the kicks.

There seems to be an assumption that I'm just sitting around in one stance. Switch stances as needed to deal with what is being thrown at me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Stay low and put both hands in front of

- your knees (conservative approach), or
- your opponent's shoulders (aggressive approach).

I wouldn't suggest this stance, not with someone who punches, kicks, and does elbows. This is face forward.

 

[jobo]

Pretty much. The low stance puts my lead leg in a vulnerable position. It's not the best position to defend against kicks to my leg. But if you are kicking my leg then that means you aren't trying to shoot in on, it means you are trying to kick my leg, then I would come out of the low stance as it wouldn't be needed and get into another stance that will allow me to better deal with the kicks.

There seems to be an assumption that I'm just sitting around in one stance. Switch stances as needed to deal with what is being thrown at me.

so why cant they shoot your leg when you stand up? you've now been kicked in the knee and been taken down with out repy,your not the only one who can change strategy on the fly,you seriously need to rethink this

and you've not told us what you would do if they try to kick your head off, as you've conveniently positioned it for them

 

[jobo]

I wouldn't suggest this stance, not with someone who punches, kicks, and does elbows. This is face forward.

iits a good stance,for a take down, it's the range that is wrong

 

[JowGaWolf]

so why cant they shoot your leg when you stand up?

I never said that they couldn't do that. I specifically remember saying in this discussion that there were other things that could be done to take me down.

 

[jobo]

I never said that they couldn't do that. I specifically remember saying in this discussion that there were other things that could be done to take me down.

you said

that you go low to avoid them shooting your leg

then after they have wrecked your knee, you stand up
and then they shoot your leg and take you down.

which is what you tried to stop them doing in the first place,

 

[JowGaWolf]

you've not told us what you would do if they try to kick your head off, as you've conveniently positioned it for them

I already stated that this was one of the disadvantages of this stance which is why you only use it for grappling. Damn nobody reads what post?

 

[jobo]

I already stated that this was one of the disadvantages of this stance which is why you only use it for grappling. Damn nobody reads what post?

and grapplers cant kick.?

 

[JowGaWolf]

then after they have wrecked your knee, you stand up

If someone is thinking about shooting for your legs then they aren't thinking about kicking it. If they are kicking your legs then they aren't thinking about the shoot, which is why they are kicking.

 

[JowGaWolf]

and grapplers cant kick.?

I never said they couldn't. Show me where I said they couldn't kick

 

[Steve]

Pretty much. The low stance puts my lead leg in a vulnerable position. It's not the best position to defend against kicks to my leg. But if you are kicking my leg then that means you aren't trying to shoot in on, it means you are trying to kick my leg, then I would come out of the low stance as it wouldn't be needed and get into another stance that will allow me to better deal with the kicks.

There seems to be an assumption that I'm just sitting around in one stance. Switch stances as needed to deal with what is being thrown at me.

Being serious for a moment, I think you're starting to answer your own question. How does someone uproot you from your low stance? Answer: Do something to get you to raise your center of gravity or take advantage of your low center of gravity.

 

[jobo]

If someone is thinking about shooting for your legs then they aren't thinking about kicking it. If they are kicking your legs then they aren't thinking about the shoot, which is why they are kicking.

they can change strategy on the fly, stay like that and they will kick you to death, stand up and they take you down

they win either way round. personally I'd stand there till you get cramp

the best, perhaps the only reliable method of stopping someone taking your legs is to hit them in the face with your knee , which needs timing and an uninjured knee

 

[JowGaWolf]

Being serious for a moment, I think you're starting to answer your own question. How does someone uproot you from your low stance? Answer: Do something to get you to raise your center of gravity or take advantage of your low center of gravity.

I already knew the answer to this? If I'm going to use a technique then I better know the limitations of what I'm using. One of the keys to be successful with a technique is to know when to use it and went not to. Knowing the limitations is also important because that's where your opponent will try to exploit it. So that information I already knew. I never had a question about that that stuff.

My curiosity was mainly if you other's here knew. And if you notice no one is saying they would try to take me down by trying to go under me. Which is the purpose of the stance, to cut that stuff out. But just because I close one door doesn't mean that another one didn't open.

Sometimes people get stuck on. One type attack. I like those guys because they don't look at other options. An example. TKD kickers are always trying to kick. They often for get that they have have hands and often times miss out openings that their hands could have taken advantages. In some cases, they are so focused on kicking that they sometimes forget that they can put up their guard using their arms. And how long did the conversation go on until someone said. that they would kick my lead leg? That same type of tunnel vision happens in fighting. It is something that can be taken advantage of and used to your benefit.

When I had wrestlers and BJJ practitioners try to take me down while in that stance not one of them thought about kicking my leg because of that tunnel vision. Is it my fault that they didn't think of it. Did I offer it as something they could try? heck no.

 

[JowGaWolf]

they win either way round. personally I'd stand there till you get cramp

This is also an option. Out of all of them this would be the one that I would take. The longer I can make someone hold that low stance the more their legs will burn out.

Like I said very early in the beginning. This is not a perfect defense. I was open with that from the beginning. Now with me. I know that's a wrist, which is I don't get into that low stance unless I feel that I really need to. The burn out thing only works for people my same height or smaller. Taller people are already at disadvantage because they are taller than me. This means that my stance doesn't have to be as low as someone who is the same height. This means I get better mobility and endurance and the same benefit for the same strategy. This is why height matters.

Like I said before. Don't make it complicated

 

[Steve]

I already knew the answer to this? If I'm going to use a technique then I better know the limitations of what I'm using. One of the keys to be successful with a technique is to know when to use it and went not to. Knowing the limitations is also important because that's where your opponent will try to exploit it. So that information I already knew. I never had a question about that that stuff.

My curiosity was mainly if you other's here knew. And if you notice no one is saying they would try to take me down by trying to go under me. Which is the purpose of the stance, to cut that stuff out. But just because I close one door doesn't mean that another one didn't open.

Sometimes people get stuck on. One type attack. I like those guys because they don't look at other options. An example. TKD kickers are always trying to kick. They often for get that they have have hands and often times miss out openings that their hands could have taken advantages. In some cases, they are so focused on kicking that they sometimes forget that they can put up their guard using their arms. And how long did the conversation go on until someone said. that they would kick my lead leg? That same type of tunnel vision happens in fighting. It is something that can be taken advantage of and used to your benefit.

When I had wrestlers and BJJ practitioners try to take me down while in that stance not one of them thought about kicking my leg because of that tunnel vision. Is it my fault that they didn't think of it. Did I offer it as something they could try? heck no.

This is like a choose your own adventure story. How does one high level wrestler catch another high level wrestler with a single or double leg takedown? Once you've answered that question, you'll have your answer, too. I just don't get how you think a strong, low stance is somehow revolutionary. It's just common sense, so I think most people aren't saying it because it's a given. You're acknowledging a kick to the lead leg as some kind of good point, but when others point out that your low stance makes you vulnerable to other things, you dismiss it with a casual, "Like I'm going to let you arm drag me or take my back." or a "I'll just raise my stance." This is fiction. It's make believe, and it's seldom as clean as you're making it out to be.

I'll try an analogy. If a guy is defending an armbar, how do you submit him? If you're stronger and/or more skilled, you could just impose your will. That's probably the simplest way. Just go grape ape on that arm and tear it off, or exploit a significant disparity in skill level. Voila: Armbar in spite of the attempt to defend.

Option 2: Just submit him with a technique other than an armbar. Another simple solution. You can catch a choke, wrist lock, kneebar, ankle lock. If we're talking about a situation where strikes are allowed, the possibilities are endless. Point is, if bad guy is defending X, easiest thing is don't do X... do Y instead. In your thread, this could be leg kicks, punches to the face, arm drags, etc. I bet there are thousands of possibilities that depend on what I'm good at vs what you're doing.

Option 3: If you really want that armbar, you encourage him to defend something else and hit the armbar when he's defending something else. Threaten something else, and force him to move his arm. Similarly, if you're in a low stance and I really want to hit a double leg but can't because you're practically sitting on the ground, it's just like what you said up above... get you to raise your stance and then hit a double leg. We see this done all the time in an MMA match... threaten high with punches and kicks, and then attack the legs. And the better your double leg vs the other guy's take down defense, the more likely you'll get it the first try, second try or maybe not at all.

Getting back to the armbar analogy, it all starts with how good your armbar defense is and how good I am at hitting that armbar. But it's also how strong you are, how strong I am, how athletic you are, how athletic I am, how skilled you are at things other than defending an armbar, how good I am at executing other things... and also all of the above points in reverse, where you are the aggressor and I am defending.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is like a choose your own adventure story. How does one high level wrestler catch another high level wrestler with a single or double leg takedown? Once you've answered that question, you'll have your answer, too. I just don't get how you think a strong, low stance is somehow revolutionary. It's just common sense, so I think most people aren't saying it because it's a given.

That's what I've been saying for the long. Most people say, oh you can't use a low stance kung fu stance but when you go through it and see what's going on. You would think that it's just common sense. I'm not the one who thinks it's revolutionary. I've never said it was special, unstoppable, or revolutionary. I never portrayed it that way. These were things that other people were assuming on their own.

Most people don't use a low kung fu stance. If you don't take Kung Fu then the stance will probably be useless. The low Kung Fu stance allows Kung Fu techniques to flow from that stance. So if you have no Kung Fu techniques, the you don't use that stance. Just like a low BJJ stance allows BJJ techniques to flow from that low stance. If most people training BJJ then they will need to use the low BJJ stance and not the Low Kung Fu Stance. The stance determines what techniques can flow from it.

BJJ and Greco Wrestling have similar stances and because of this a BJJ practitioner can use is BJJ stance to initiate some Greco Wrestling techniques. Low Hung Gar stances do not work well with WC but it works well with other kung fut systems. It works well with Shuai Jiao

You're acknowledging a kick to the lead leg as some kind of good point, but when others point out that your low stance makes you vulnerable to other things, you dismiss it with a casual,

I'm the one who pointed out the vulnerabilities before anyone else. Read Post #75, #77. I laid it all out. Here's post #75 This is me referring to the low stance.

It's not a foolproof takedown defense. I've already stated as much. It's also not magic. There are a lot of risks that go with it. For example, dealing with low kicks at that level.

So how am I dismissing. No one pointed out to me that low kicks to this stance is an issue. I'm the one who said it before anyone else bought it up.

"Like I'm going to let you arm drag me or take my back." or a "I'll just raise my stance." This is fiction. It's make believe, and it's seldom as clean as you're making it out to be.

Have you ever sparred with anyone who was good at using a low Kung Fu stance? If not go give it a try and you'll see what issues you'll run into trying grab that front arm. The one thing that I haven't gone into details are the types of attacks that can be done from this position and I intentionally did that for good reason. I don't share all of my fighting strategies. Just like I haven't seen anyone share theirs in this group.

There's nothing fictional about changing stances to fit the situations. Kung Fu has more stance variety and level Changes than another system that I know of. Fighters change stance level all the time and switch through various types of stances, as well as hold some stances.

Option 2: Just submit him with a technique other than an armbar. Another simple solution. You can catch a choke, wrist lock, kneebar, ankle lock. If we're talking about a situation where strikes are allowed, the possibilities are endless.

The possibilities are endless but not the probability. Which is why I don't factor more than 2 or 3 steps beyond what I may be able to do. Anything beyond that becomes a data overload and you won't get anything good from it other than confused.

Getting back to the armbar analogy, it all starts with how good your armbar defense is and how good I am at hitting that armbar. But it's also how strong you are, how strong I am, how athletic you are, how athletic I am, how skilled you are at things other than defending an armbar, how good I am at executing other things... and also all of the above points in reverse, where you are the aggressor and I am defending.

Yes you are right but not all of these things are key to what you need to do or try to complish. For example, Strength, how athletic a person is, will have very little effect on how someone will sweep you. This is because of the nature of the sweeps, how they are used and when they are used. So there's no need to consider those points. Only consider what matters.

In the case of someone grabbing my arm while in the low stance, I'm can only assume the person thinks it will very easy. just reach out and grab the arm. If that is the case then there are other things that person may not be taking into consideration. I have video of someone testing that just to see what how I would respond.

 

[drop bear]

If I thought you had steel toe boots or shoes then I would be in a more mobile stance from the beginning. Any boot or boot like shoe that I see, I automatically assume that it could be steel toe and therefore, I will take a different approach.

I don't fight people in boots the same way I fight people in sneakers. These are things that I take note of before or during. For example, every confrontation I've had except for 2. I was able to have enough time during the confrontation to take note of what they were wearing. I don't know about anyone else, but in the U.S. I'm always doing a visual check for guns and other possible weapons. I take note of belt buckles, and the mobility of their pants. This happens while the person is yelling and verbally assaulting me.

On that note from messing around with calf kicks. That low solid stance makes it very easy to attack. Their defence is to create a more mobile front foot thai stance. But then it let's you attack something else.

So you don't need boots to attack the lower leg. If they are kind enough to stick it out there for you.

 

[JowGaWolf]

On that note from messing around with calf kicks. That low solid stance makes it very easy to attack. Their defence is to create a more mobile front foot thai stance. But then it let's you attack something else.

So you don't need boots to attack the lower leg. If they are kind enough to stick it out there for you.

You get it.

There's a "defense" to the low kick to the leg when in a low stance. but I can't say that's it's better than getting kicked in the leg in the first place. More like trading wounds. So far I have not discovered one that will allow me to stay in that low stance and weather the low kicks. I've tried a lot of things and all I found were things that didn't work and things that made things worse. I don't know if there's anything that can be done other then get out of that stance once your opponent gets that striking going.

 

[Buka]

Just out of curiosity what is your answer for that stance. If you and I were sparring and I thought you were trying to shoot for my legs. What would you response be? Just curious.

Actually, I knee jerked my response. I'm sure you can change levels quite quickly. You would certainly have the leg strength to do so. But I wasn't speaking as a grappler but as a striker, which I am first and foremost.