Sanda

[Hanzou]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand. If you are fighting 1 vs 2. What are you going to do? Use your ground game and talk about how effective BJJ is? You'll lose, It always plays out the same way. 1 vs 1 , you can afford to use a ground game. 1 vs 2. Ground game will result in a loss. If you look at the 5 vs 5 MMA fights. It always plays out this way. As you see in the video below. This is what happens to a ground game when you have to fight more than 1 person.

The great error in your argument is that you think the goal is to go to the ground in every situation. If you watch that video closely, you'll see that both sides went for tackles and takedowns. It just so happens that in the chaos of that nonsensical show, one group got the better of another group and used simple numbers to overwhelm the other team. I have no idea why you think that's some statement against ground fighting, especially when its taught in pretty much every serious self defense discipline these days.

Martial arts that have a considerable amount of striking in it are more focused on the possibility of multiple attackers. Even a 2 vs 2 scenario makes a ground game very risky. 1 vs 1 can turn into a quick loss if other join in. The green shirt was fortunate that the guy he was beating up didn't have a friend around. Look how easy it is to interfere.

Yes, now take that exact same situation and imagine if the guy in the green didn't know ground fighting, and the other guy was on top of him socking him in the face over and over again. It's also important to note that the guy in the green could have ended that confrontation at multiple points, but chose instead to show some sort of dominance over his opponent (i.e. punching him in the head instead of just choking him out at the outset of the fight).

Here's another

And if he knew ground fighting the person on his back wouldn't have needed his mommy to save him.

This is why people say being on the ground is not good. Gracies have even stated so themselves.

Who is saying that being on the ground is good?

If my brother is with me, and you and I get into a fight, You use BJJ on me, what do you think my brother is going to do while your hands are busy trying to control me. Lets add weapons to the scenario. I don't have a weapon but my brother has a knife. Yeah you are going to get stuck and it won't take a lot of effort for my brother to stab you. Where are you going to run? How are you going to defend against 2 people when you are on the ground?

We can flip this around to any martial art and the exact same thing happens. What? You think Kung Fu helps you fight against multiple armed people? Kung Fu exponents have problems fighting one unarmed person. This is the TMA delusion I'm talking about.

Let's just keep this in mind; You're essentially arguing that Bjj is heavily disadvantaged against multiple armed attackers, as if EVERY martial art isn't disadvantaged against multiple armed attackers.

If I have someone with me, then it doesn't matter if I have ground game or not. Not sure why this is so difficult. To understand. Listen to what they say 3:50

And listen to what they said at 4:08. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

While fighting multiple attackers at once is a big risk. It's a definitely 98% certainty you'll lose if you go to the ground and think that you can fight multiple attackers while on the ground and still win. The other 2% depends on if you are able to get up quickly or at all after going to the ground.

And I'm asking again, who said that being on the ground is good?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The great error in your argument is that you think the goal is to go to the ground in every situation.

For all of the time, that I've been on MT I have never made such a claim or an assumption. I simply just showed you why CMA says that going to the ground is bad because you think that there is some flawed thinking for a system to teach teach that. For me personally, I'm fine with going to the ground so long as I'm in a better position and am able to quickly regain my mobility. My sparring videos are proof of the logic that I use. I even made a Jow Ga takedown and takedown defense video which is the total opposite of what you claim my argument to be.

Who is saying that being on the ground is good?

It is implied when you make statements like this "The Chinese have some sort of aversion towards fighting on the ground." And then don't understand why Chinese martial arts prefer to take someone down while remaining standing as if it's a flaw. So when you see Chinese Martial Arts take that stance that being on the ground is not good. Then those videos are why they think that way.

You make it again when you say things like "And if he knew ground fighting the person on his back wouldn't have needed his mommy to save him." But the guy that didn't know how to ground fight wasn't the one who got KOed by a kick to the face.

You think Kung Fu helps you fight against multiple armed people?

I have never made such a statement. But the reality is, that you have a better chance of fighting against or escaping multiple armed people when you are not on the ground. Kung Fu has nothing to do with it. When you are on the ground, you give up your mobility and greatly reduce you ability to retreat if needed. This is always true regardless if you have a weapon or not.

Kung Fu exponents have problems fighting one unarmed person. This is the TMA delusion I'm talking about.

People who don't train to fight have problems fighting one unarmed person. If you do kung fu but you don't train to actually fight then you'll have problems. This has nothing to do with Kung Fu, but everything to do about not training to fight.

These people don't look like they have trouble fighting.

These are kung fu practitioners that train to fight. It doesn't look like they have trouble fighting

If doesn't matter what system you train. If you don't train to fight, then you'll suck at fighting. The only people who are really good at fighting are those who train to fight. Are there Kung Fu Practitioner's who think they are training to fight, but are actually no good. Of course. But I bet their fight training is of low quality too.

And listen to what they said at 4:08. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

I already know this. I'm the one pointing it out to you. It's not the other way around.

 

[Hanzou]

For all of the time, that I've been on MT I have never made such a claim or an assumption. I simply just showed you why CMA says that going to the ground is bad because you think that there is some flawed thinking for a system to teach teach that. For me personally, I'm fine with going to the ground so long as I'm in a better position and am able to quickly regain my mobility. My sparring videos are proof of the logic that I use. I even made a Jow Ga takedown and takedown defense video which is the total opposite of what you claim my argument to be.

I understand perfectly well why CMA says going to ground is bad. You may be surprised to know that Bjj says the exact same thing. The flawed thinking within CMA doesn't come from them believing that, the flawed thinking is that they never address it. Instead of coming up with a real solution, they come up with fantastical nonsense like the belief that you can make your body defy gravity and NEVER be taken to the ground. Meanwhile in the real world, being taken to the ground is a real possibility, and not from Bjj exponents (we tend to be gentle folk), but from people larger and stronger than you.

You say that you're fine going to ground as long as you're in a better position and able to quickly regain your mobility? What if you don't end up in a dominant position and aren't able to regain your mobility? I do believe you're in the U.S. correct? In the United States, Wrestling is taught as a sport that pretty much any high school male can practice and compete in. They can get scholarships to college and continue practicing wrestling and compete at extremely high levels. That means in your country there are a sizable population of highly trained grapplers with YEARS of grappling experience that they have applied in a competitive space. If you think those guys are going to allow you to end up in a "better position" after they take you down, you're dreaming. Trust me, I've dealt with those types because they constantly stream into Bjj and MMA gyms, and as someone who has the tools to deal DIRECTLY with their skillset, they can still give me a very hard time, especially if you get those 20-something corn-fed boys right out of college who have seemingly endless amounts of energy and strength.

It is implied when you make statements like this "The Chinese have some sort of aversion towards fighting on the ground." And then don't understand why Chinese martial arts prefer to take someone down while remaining standing as if it's a flaw. So when you see Chinese Martial Arts take that stance that being on the ground is not good. Then those videos are why they think that way.

See above. There's a reason Bjj is expanding rapidly in China btw.

You make it again when you say things like "And if he knew ground fighting the person on his back wouldn't have needed his mommy to save him." But the guy that didn't know how to ground fight wasn't the one who got KOed by a kick to the face.

The guy on top didn't know how to ground fight either. The point is, the person on the ground was stuck and someone had to come and save him. What if no one was there to run up and kick the guy on top in the face? What if mommy was there to stomp on the bottom person instead? That's the point you seem to be missing.

I have never made such a statement. But the reality is, that you have a better chance of fighting against or escaping multiple armed people when you are not on the ground. Kung Fu has nothing to do with it. When you are on the ground, you give up your mobility and greatly reduce you ability to retreat if needed. This is always true regardless if you have a weapon or not.

And once again, no one is advocating going to the ground in a multiple person situation. The very fact that you believe that Kung Fu has a better chance of surviving a multiple person situation just shows that you're in a TMA delusion. I recommend you watch that Gracie video you posted again. The proper strategy is to run no matter what you practice. If you can't run, stay and fight. If you get knocked to the ground, you keep fighting, regain your mobility and you try to run away again. Bjj gives you the tools to do that. CMA? Not so much.

People who don't train to fight have problems fighting one unarmed person. If you do kung fu but you don't train to actually fight then you'll have problems. This has nothing to do with Kung Fu, but everything to do about not training to fight.

These people don't look like they have trouble fighting.

These are kung fu practitioners that train to fight. It doesn't look like they have trouble fighting

If doesn't matter what system you train. If you don't train to fight, then you'll suck at fighting. The only people who are really good at fighting are those who train to fight. Are there Kung Fu Practitioner's who think they are training to fight, but are actually no good. Of course. But I bet their fight training is of low quality too.

Yes, like your former Kung fu school that kicked you out for sparring. I would say that the people in that school aren't train to fight. Wouldn't you agree? Yes, I would say the people in those videos are definitely trained to fight. But look at how they're fighting. It looks no different than standard kickboxing, so why waste time studying all of those forms and theory when in the end you just look like a kick boxer?

So yeah, they're trained to fight. However, if in the end they're just going to fight like kick boxers, why not just take Muay Thai instead? Not to mention that if they get taken down, they're toast.

I already know this. I'm the one pointing it out to you. It's not the other way around.

If you already know this, why are you implying that Bjj is nullified in a multi-attacker situation to the point that it isn't worth learning?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The flawed thinking within CMA doesn't come from them believing that, the flawed thinking is that they never address it.

People in that group are in a totally different category than me. The two other instructors that I trained with before I became an instructor were like that. When our school first went to spar against the Sanda School, I told them that Sanda fighters will try to take you down. I told them that they need to adjust their stance in order to be better prepared for those attempts. Did they listen? nope. Did they address the danger? nope. In their mind they were going to go to the school and do well.

When it came time, they got laid on the ground like a little baby. They didn't bother to understand Jow Ga application beyond, striking. My mindset is that you always have to address what you are up against. There's no such thing as a one size fits all. So I agree with you 100% and it irritates me greatly, but only when it comes to those who say they can use it but never even spar or train accordingly. That day was the biggest disappointment for my teacher then, because he specifically taught classes on how to deal with it.

You say that you're fine going to ground as long as you're in a better position and able to quickly regain your mobility? What if you don't end up in a dominant position and aren't able to regain your mobility?

Then I'm screwed. I'm screwed in the same way that the person I'm fighting would be screwed if I'm able to get to my feet and soccer kick him in the head. To me this is reality, Just like BJJ practitioners don't worry about being "the best strikers." If me being on my feet is important then I need to train that much harder to do so and learn how to counter things before techniques are set in. Someone grabs my wrist then I need to learn how to escape it or counter it before they can lock on. Again referring to my sparring videos you can see me apply this type of thinking.

They can get scholarships to college and continue practicing wrestling and compete at extremely high levels. That means in your country there are a sizable population of highly trained grapplers with YEARS of grappling experience that they have applied in a competitive space. If you think those guys are going to allow you to end up in a "better position" after they take you down, you're dreaming. Trust me, I've dealt with those types because they constantly stream into Bjj and MMA gyms, and as someone who has the tools to deal DIRECTLY with their skillset, they can still give me a very hard time, especially if you get those 20-something corn-fed boys right out of college who have seemingly endless amounts of energy and strength.

You mean like my brother?

See above. There's a reason Bjj is expanding rapidly in China btw.

yeah because you make more money and fame that way. There is already a documentary out about that.

The point is, the person on the ground was stuck and someone had to come and save him. What if no one was there to run up and kick the guy on top in the face? That's the point you seem to be missing.

If no one is there to save him then he won't be saved.
Same end result for people who get murdered when there is no one to save them.

But you seem to keep missing the point that someone was and that's not a hypothetical what if. So asking the question. "What if no one was there to run up and kick the guy on top in the face?" is not the reality of that video and for that particular fight it will never be a reality for him.

The very fact that you believe that Kung Fu has a better chance of surviving a multiple person situation just shows that you're in a TMA delusion

Again you miss the point. I said staying on your feet and keeping your mobility has a better chance of surviving a multiperson attack. This is such a basic concept that TMA doesn't have anything to do with it. Other than TMA thinks that way as well as BJJ and other fighting systems as I have already pointed this out.

The proper strategy is to run no matter what you practice. If you can't run, stay and fight.

If you can't run then maintain distance. Use your mobility, which requires you to be on your feet.

 

[Hanzou]

People in that group are in a totally different category than me. The two other instructors that I trained with before I became an instructor were like that. When our school first went to spar against the Sanda School, I told them that Sanda fighters will try to take you down. I told them that they need to adjust their stance in order to be better prepared for those attempts. Did they listen? nope. Did they address the danger? nope. In their mind they were going to go to the school and do well.

When it came time, they got laid on the ground like a little baby. They didn't bother to understand Jow Ga application beyond, striking. My mindset is that you always have to address what you are up against. There's no such thing as a one size fits all. So I agree with you 100% and it irritates me greatly, but only when it comes to those who say they can use it but never even spar or train accordingly. That day was the biggest disappointment for my teacher then, because he specifically taught classes on how to deal with it.

Well they're not really in a different group than you. While you're better off than them in the striking department, you still seem to have some hang up about ground fighting.

Then I'm screwed. I'm screwed in the same way that the person I'm fighting would be screwed if I'm able to get to my feet and soccer kick him in the head. To me this is reality, Just like BJJ practitioners don't worry about being "the best strikers." If me being on my feet is important then I need to train that much harder to do so and learn how to counter things before techniques are set in. Someone grabs my wrist then I need to learn how to escape it or counter it before they can lock on. Again referring to my sparring videos you can see me apply this type of thinking.

You're not screwed though. You can simply cross-train in Bjj and learn what you need if you end up in that situation. You don't even need to reach a high end belt, you could train for about a year of so and get your blue belt and be just fine. You could even pass that knowledge on to your students, and give them a further edge over standard Kung Fu practitioners. What's the problem? You afraid you're going to like it and abandon Kung Fu?

Wouldn't be the first time that happened...

You mean like my brother?

Yes, like your brother, minus his desire not to do permanent bodily harm to you.

yeah because you make more money and fame that way. There is already a documentary out about that.

Well no, it's because they did challenge matches against traditional Chinese MA and dominated them. When people saw that they flocked to Bjj schools in China which hastened the decline of traditional martial arts there.

If no one is there to save him then he won't be saved.
Same end result for people who get murdered when there is no one to save them.

Knowledge of the Guard would save him. Just saying....

But you seem to keep missing the point that someone was and that's not a hypothetical what if. So asking the question. "What if no one was there to run up and kick the guy on top in the face?" is not the reality of that video and for that particular fight it will never be a reality for him.

No, the reality of that video is that the person on the bottom was helpless and had to be saved from a bystander. My point is that the reality I talked about where no one is there to save the person on the bottom happens all the time, and typically that person on the bottom is open to heavy if not lethal damage from the person on top of them. What's CMA's answer to that? Don't end up in that position in the first place? That's really not a solution my friend, and you know it. Instead of digging through kata or old Chinese proverbs, why not simply learn how to actually fight from that position?

Your goal in posting that video was to show the inherent flaw in ground fighting. Ironically, you demonstrated how valuable that knowledge actually is.

Again you miss the point. I said staying on your feet and keeping your mobility has a better chance of surviving a multiperson attack. This is such a basic concept that TMA doesn't have anything to do with it. Other than TMA thinks that way as well as BJJ and other fighting systems as I have already pointed this out.

Again, your goal in this conversation was to attempt to make an argument that Bjj is deficient in multi-person attack versus other martial arts. You even stated earlier that striking works better in a multi-person attack situation. An argument btw that isn't verified by any reputable source and just screams of something a sifu would say to someone asking uncomfortable questions.

If you can't run then maintain distance. Use your mobility, which requires you to be on your feet.

LoL! Here we go again. So for the third time, who exactly is advocating to go to the ground in a multi-assailant situation?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I try to arrange a Sanda training program. IMO, the correct training steps should be in the following order:

1. footwork,
2. kick,
3. punch,
4. clinch,
5. take down.

Any comment?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is a good way for a Sanda guy to train front kick and foot sweep.

He can train:

- footwork,
- hit target,
- correct contact point, and
- maintain social distance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you start to teach your student Sanda, how will you start? I'll use the following steps.

1. Use foot sweep to set up another kick.
2. Use kick to set up a jab.

After that, the jab can be changed into a pull followed by a

- cross, or
- hook.

The training is really very simple and straight forward.

 

[Oily Dragon]

That really hasn't been demonstrated by modern exponents of Kung Fu.

Depends on who you're talking about. It's not that black and white. There are many people in MMA who love kung fu, and will gladly talk to you about it for hours.

Suffice to say, different schools tend to keep different things more alive. Jujutsu didn't really keep training in general alive. Judo fixed a lot of that, and BJJ has kept Asian arts quite alive, and not just Japan's.

To use one specific example: there is nothing in most of the Chinese tiger styles that can't be used on the ground. It's all grips, arm drags, limb wrapping, limb hyperextension, body weight manipulation to dominate another person. It was developed watching massive kitty cats, and you can't tell me good human grapplers don't also fight like tigers, can you?

Well what's wrong with the idea that it's reached its peak recently? Grappling now is at a level that it has never been, and the competitive grapplers now are vastly superior to grapplers from just a decade ago. It's pretty hard to argue against the fact that Bjj ground fighting philosophy has fundamentally changed the martial arts landscape.

Peak though? It's not rocket science, it's basic human hand to hand. We've been doing it for 100,000 years as a species. So what's so new about the BJJ ground fighting philosophy that people couldn't have been figured out before? Getting really good at strangling someone while rolling around on the ground...that's probably how we progressed as a species early on, just sayin.

Wrestle standing, wrestling on the ground, falling down, getting back up, get hit, hitting back... I don't really see much of a difference as a resurgence of the same old song. It's primeval stuff.

 

[Hanzou]

\
Peak though? It's not rocket science, it's basic human hand to hand. We've been doing it for 100,000 years as a species. So what's so new about the BJJ ground fighting philosophy that people couldn't have been figured out before? Getting really good at strangling someone while rolling around on the ground...that's probably how we progressed as a species early on, just sayin.

Wrestle standing, wrestling on the ground, falling down, getting back up, get hit, hitting back... I don't really see much of a difference as a resurgence of the same old song. It's primeval stuff.

I'm not aware of any fighting system outside of Bjj that turns a dramatically bad situation (being on your back) into a position that allows you to effectively beat a opponent on top, or even standing. It's so good at it, that other systems have attempted to develop counters to it (the Guard), and failing that have simply brought it into their system. Typically in grappling systems (even Judo), once you're on your back, you're pretty much considered "dead".

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm not aware of any fighting system outside of Bjj that turns a dramatically bad situation (being on your back) into a position that allows you to effectively beat a opponent on top, or even standing. It's so good at it, that other systems have attempted to develop counters to it (the Guard), and failing that have simply brought it into their system. Typically in grappling systems (even Judo), once you're on your back, you're pretty much considered "dead".

Really? Judo must suck on the ground, then. Hail Brazil.

 

[Hanzou]

Really? Judo must suck on the ground, then. Hail Brazil.

Judo doesn't really have a Guard system like Bjj has. I wouldn't say they "suck", but they're definitely lagging behind Bjj practitioners.

 

[Mitlov]

Without the ground game, Sanda develops different set of techniques than MMA does.

Do you think it's more fun to watch Sanda than MMA? Your thought?

From a spectator enjoyment perspective, I'd rather watch Glory kickboxing then either, because I personally don't enjoy watching wrestling or a ground game, and I kickboxing has a more exciting stand-up game in my opinion.

If the only two choices are Sanda or MMA, I'll watch Sanda.

 

[JKDJade]

Without the ground game, Sanda develops different set of techniques than MMA does.

Do you think it's more fun to watch Sanda than MMA? Your thought?

I prefer it. As MMA becomes a hug fest at times (boring). I prefer the the fast action of a Sanda match. I trained at a sanda gym in chinatown--KL roughly 5 years ago. Great training...lots of bag work.

 

[Hanzou]

I prefer it. As MMA becomes a hug fest at times (boring). I prefer the the fast action of a Sanda match. I trained at a sanda gym in chinatown--KL roughly 5 years ago. Great training...lots of bag work.

Yeah, you’re definitely in the minority. Sanda isn’t even popular in its home country of China. MMA crushes it on just about every level of popularity.

 

[JKDJade]

Yeah, you’re definitely in the minority. Sanda isn’t even popular in its home country of China. MMA crushes it on just about every level of popularity.

Yea... crazy how the Chinese don't even really like. I like it, and I like Japanese Shoot Fighting as well. I like some UFC MMA, but gets real boring when its just two guys on the ground cuddling.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah, you’re definitely in the minority. Sanda isn’t even popular in its home country of China. MMA crushes it on just about every level of popularity.

I'm curious how much of that is a result of marketing. I'd be really curious if someone could, in multiple different countries, conduct a study where they basically show 3 different random sanda bouts, 3 different random kickboxing bouts, 3 different random muay Thai bouts, 3 different random judo bouts, 3 different random WT TKD bouts, 3 different random judo bouts and finally 3 different random MMA bouts, and have them rate each of them in terms of entertainment value, without telling them what art was each bout, and see the result. You seem much more interested in the result than I am, so maybe you could do the study? If not in 5-10 years when I've got both money and free time to conduct it I'll try to do it, but no promises on that. So if you really are interested/you really want to prove BJJ's superiority in this aspect, go for it and show us all the results.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yea... crazy how the Chinese don't even really like. I like it, and I like Japanese Shoot Fighting as well. I like some UFC MMA, but gets real boring when its just two guys on the ground cuddling.

@Hanzou I mentioned this in another thread, then immediately saw this. This is the exact 'ground cuddling' complaint that I hear among people who don't actually practice BJJ watching MMA.

 

[Hanzou]

@Hanzou I mentioned this in another thread, then immediately saw this. This is the exact 'ground cuddling' complaint that I hear among people who don't actually practice BJJ watching MMA.

However, grappling-based fighters like Khabib, Daniel Corimeir, Rousey, Shinya Aoiki, and Angela Lee are popular, and MMA trounces kickboxing in popularity. So again, I don’t see why the opinions of ignorant people matter much.

 

[Hanzou]

I'm curious how much of that is a result of marketing. I'd be really curious if someone could, in multiple different countries, conduct a study where they basically show 3 different random sanda bouts, 3 different random kickboxing bouts, 3 different random muay Thai bouts, 3 different random judo bouts, 3 different random WT TKD bouts, 3 different random judo bouts and finally 3 different random MMA bouts, and have them rate each of them in terms of entertainment value, without telling them what art was each bout, and see the result. You seem much more interested in the result than I am, so maybe you could do the study? If not in 5-10 years when I've got both money and free time to conduct it I'll try to do it, but no promises on that. So if you really are interested/you really want to prove BJJ's superiority in this aspect, go for it and show us all the results.

What would be the purpose of that study? To show that people don’t know what they’re watching?

The simple reality is this; people enjoy the added element of ground fighting because it allows the possibility of breaking up a monotonous striking match. Just like striking allows the possibility of breaking up a monotonous grappling match. Given that, it’s not surprising that we have the results that we have.