Some more thoughts on "anti grappling".

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you can punch at your opponent's face, you should be able to grab on his throat.

Honestly if you are any good there are a few ways to get the message across.

I don't like "no contact" control sparring.

You can

- pull your punch just 1/2 inch away from your opponent's face.
- punch as hard as you can next to your opponent's face.

Both approaches cannot stop your opponent's forward momentum.

 

[geezer]

Pretty solid technique in my book , getting kicked in the face and the groin is no fun.
That being said you could probably do away with some of the fancy stuff.

Just because it is not your way , does not make it a less valid tool for self defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop

Mook, I have never met Sifu Yannis Simeonidis, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. Emin is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, Yannis is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that Emin taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.

Now regarding this last clip, it's not a choreographed demo but more like "light WC ground sparring" and at times has a bit of the feeling of a "lock flow drill" --not in the techniques, which are overwhelmingly percussive, but in the way he flows from one situation to another.

I actually like the way Yannis applies WC principles and strikes on the ground. There are some moves that may be borrowed from BJJ, but the majority of what I saw looks like intelligently applied WC striking and controlling, except from the ground. Not the place you want to be, but a good place to train from case you end up there. This is an approach any WC guy could quickly assimilate since it is an extension of what he already does.

Now Hanzou may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that Hanzou does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes Sifu Yannis delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend Hanzou will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?

 

[mook jong man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop

Mook, I have never met Sifu Yannis Simeonidis, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. Emin is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, Yannis is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that Emin taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.

Now regarding this last clip, it's not a choreographed demo but more like "light WC ground sparring" and at times has a bit of the feeling of a "lock flow drill" --not in the techniques, which are overwhelmingly percussive, but in the way he flows from one situation to another.

I actually like the way Yannis applies WC principles and strikes on the ground. There are some moves that may be borrowed from BJJ, but the majority of what I saw looks like intelligently applied WC striking and controlling, except from the ground. Not the place you want to be, but a good place to train from case you end up there. This is an approach any WC guy could quickly assimilate since it is an extension of what he already does.

Now Hanzou may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that Hanzou does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes Sifu Yannis delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend Hanzou will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?

I think the lenses on those Bjj goggles he's got welded to his head are so damn thick , everything he sees out of them is from the perspective a grappler in a competition.

Simple kicks in the face and groin won't do , no , you've got to pass the guard get a submission hold and see if the judges will give you some points.

 

[Steve]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Hn_Y86CEk&app=desktop

Mook, I have never met Sifu Yannis Simeonidis, but way back I worked a bit with his old Sifu, Emin Boztepe. Emin is the real deal and from what I've seen on youtube, Yannis is a very solid exponent of the flavor of "WT" that Emin taught. And I would bet that he can use his stuff in a fight too.

Now regarding this last clip, it's not a choreographed demo but more like "light WC ground sparring" and at times has a bit of the feeling of a "lock flow drill" --not in the techniques, which are overwhelmingly percussive, but in the way he flows from one situation to another.

I actually like the way Yannis applies WC principles and strikes on the ground. There are some moves that may be borrowed from BJJ, but the majority of what I saw looks like intelligently applied WC striking and controlling, except from the ground. Not the place you want to be, but a good place to train from case you end up there. This is an approach any WC guy could quickly assimilate since it is an extension of what he already does.

Now Hanzou may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that Hanzou does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes Sifu Yannis delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend Hanzou will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?

I notice he's wearing long trousers. Is controlling the leg by grabbing the pants against the rules of anti grappling? If not, I wonder that his training partner... The "grappler," isn't working to secure any kind of control over his opponent's legs.

Don't get me wrong. Using your legs is critical, and you might be successful, but I don't think so unless you,train with competent partners. Some of you do, and some are too wrapped up in ego. Those who do will surely be better prepared.

Geezer, it strikes me as a little unfair to accuse Hanzou of bias, when surely you are talking to a guy in mook who is equally blinded by bias, if not more so. I've always appreciated your own moderate opinions, and we've heard from others, such as yak Sao, who says he works on his technique with actual grapplers. Mook on the other hand, is as much a fanboy as anyone around here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Marnetmar]

The cognitive dissonance here is frankly astounding. Can we have an honest discussion on WC's strengths and weaknesses in grappling scenarios without resorting to woo for once?

 

[Vajramusti]

Getting a little weary of the thread.My key wing chun brothers and sisters and my best students are both stable and mobile enough to
overcome take down attempts. And- I have tried out wingchun defense against an all American Greco roman grappler moving in for a takedown,
an Oklahoma heavyweight wrestling champion and against a junior high wrestling coach . Further. from time to time
I have practiced wing chun on the ground before I knew who the Gracies were.
These were competent people who I respect and could handle me in a sporting wrestling match.

In the article section of my website at www.tempewingchun.com my second article for the Journal of Asian Martial art
shows me defending against a very competent grappler.

I come to the forum from time to time to learn something- and occasionally I do.

 

[Steve]

Getting a little weary of the thread.My key wing chun brothers and sisters and my best students are both stable and mobile enough to
overcome take down attempts. And- I have tried out wingchun defense against an all American Greco roman grappler moving in for a takedown,
an Oklahoma heavyweight wrestling champion and against a junior high wrestling coach . Further. from time to time
I have practiced wing chun on the ground before I knew who the Gracies were.
These were competent people who I respect and could handle me in a sporting wrestling match.

In the article section of my website at www.tempewingchun.com my second article for the Journal of Asian Martial art
shows me defending against a very competent grappler.

I come to the forum from time to time to learn something- and occasionally I do.

Fwiw, my opinion is that this is an incredibly healthy training model, and your openness to working with competent grapplers is laudable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

Now Hanzou may rightly point out that a skilled grappler may have other solutions, maybe better solutions. But all that comes from a different art, and could not be as easily and effectively adapted onto a WC base. Also, I personally believe that Hanzou does not sufficiently value the effectiveness of a really good striker who is also comfortable on the ground, especially when anything goes as in self defense. If you look at the strikes Sifu Yannis delivers, many would not be allowed in competition bouts, but they look effective to me ...though I'm sure our friend Hanzou will disagree. Do you sense that, just maybe, he is not being 100% objective here?

Two things;

1. It doesn't require a skilled grappler to get past a guy doing bicycle kicks on his back. I mean, you really think it takes a great deal of skill to grab someone's pants and pull the leg in a given direction?
2. I saw nothing in that vid that wouldn't be legal in an MMA/NHB competition.

 

[geezer]

I notice he's wearing long trousers. Is controlling the leg by grabbing the pants against the rules of anti grappling? If not, I wonder that his training partner... The "grappler," isn't working to secure any kind of control over his opponent's legs.

Don't get me wrong. Using your legs is critical, and you might be successful, but I don't think so unless you, train with competent partners. Some of you do, and some are too wrapped up in ego. Those who do will surely be better prepared.

True and fair words.

BTW Steve, to be honest I am biased since I am a WC stylist. I've seen people make something as seemingly simple as chain punching work when other stylists said it was a ridiculous idea.

I've also seen people use chain kicking and leg checks from the ground to keep from being mounted and to recover their game. It's not easy. There is more subtlety and skill involved than meets the eye, but it can work very well. So there is no point in arguing. Either people will agree or not. The style and methods we choose are up to each of us and we have to live with our choices. But if we are to avoid self delusion, we need to do as you suggest above and seek out competent, resisting partners to train with and test our skills.

You know, Joy is probably right. Perhaps this thread has run it's course and is done.

 

[drop bear]

I don't like "no contact" control sparring.

You can

- pull your punch just 1/2 inch away from your opponent's face.
- punch as hard as you can next to your opponent's face.

Both approaches cannot stop your opponent's forward momentum.

Which is something you would have to just accept because I can't imagine anybody would train to react to a punch that doesn't hit them.

 

[drop bear]

All right. mindset. Grappling is a will game as much as anything. Part of the anti grappling method is where you expend your energy. So if you are going to put the effort in it has to be at the scramble. You cannot lazy out and hope things will get better from your back because they really won't.

If you are put on your back don't rest. You cannot afford to. You need to be effecting a stand up before the guy on top has time to consolidate his position.

A lot of takedown defence are worst case scenarios. And it is worth training the elements of control before you need to employ these. The concept is heavy hands. Make the clinch a burden for the other guy. Learn good head control and expend the energy to be a right pain to deal with.

This means taking the head and driving it into the ground. Getting a solid over hook and working that.

 

[Buka]

There's lots of different ways to do things. I think the best way to do anti-anything, would be to do some training in that particular "anything". If you wanted anti-boxing, you would be better off doing some training in boxing. And not with a fella in your gym that's acting as the boxer. Training in boxing would give you a much better idea how to use any martial skill you have against boxing. Same for anti-grappling. Training in grappling gives you a first hand feel for the many intricacies of grappling arts. Same for anti - kicking. The more you train in kicking, and know about the mechanics, timing and application of kicks, the better any anti-kicking would be. Same for WC, go do some before you think about anti - WC.

Best way to defeat a grappler is to go grapple for a while, get caught in every submission and train in every submission, and most important IMO, is to learn about position and base. To me, anti anything is purely theoretical without some training in that "anything".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think the best way to do anti-anything, would be to do some training in that particular "anything".

Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all.

- You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
- If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all.

- You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
- If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.

A grappler with boxing experience will have an easier time establishing a clinch without getting hit than a grappler without that experience. He'll know how to read his opponent and how to slip punches on his way in. He'll also have the option of using his own strikes to set up an entry. Randy Couture is an excellent example of this.

In the early days of MMA, you had pure "striker vs grappler" battles. These days a fighter who prefers to strike has to know enough grappling to neutralize his opponents clinch and takedown attempts. Likewise a fighter who prefers to grapple has to know enough striking to survive while attempting to reach grappling range. No one at the professional level of modern MMA can survive without both striking and grappling skills.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A grappler with boxing experience will have an easier time establishing a clinch without getting hit than a grappler without that experience.

When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.

1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.

If you are a grappler

- with boxing training, you may choose option 1. You may miss your clinch opportunity right at that moment.
- without any boxing training, you may choose option 2 and achieve your clinch right at that moment.

If you are a grappler, your striking skill will never be as good as a "pure" striker. Try to apply your 2nd class striking skill against your opponent's 1st class striking skill is not a smart strategy IMO. When a shark attacks an octopus, that octopus won't try to bite back on that shark but tries to wrap around that shark ASAP.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.

1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.

If you are a grappler

- with boxing training, you may choose option 1. You may miss your clinch opportunity right at that moment.
- without any boxing training, you may choose option 2 and achieve your clinch right at that moment.

If you are a grappler, your striking skill will never be as good as a "pure" striker. Try to apply your 2nd class striking skill against your opponent's 1st class striking skill is not a smart strategy IMO. When a shark attacks an octopus, that octopus won't try to bite back on that shark but tries to wrap around that shark ASAP.

I get your point, but people are neither sharks nor octopuses.

A shark can never learn to fight like an octopus, and vice-versa. Their anatomy is completely different, and they both have to work with the tools at their disposal.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

When your opponent punches at your head, you will have the following options.

1. dodge/block/deflect, and punch back.
2. wrap his punching arm, wrap his body (or other arm) and achieve clinch.

If you are a grappler

- with boxing training, you may choose option 1. You may miss your clinch opportunity right at that moment.
- without any boxing training, you may choose option 2 and achieve your clinch right at that moment.

If you are a grappler, your striking skill will never be as good as a "pure" striker. Try to apply your 2nd class striking skill against your opponent's 1st class striking skill is not a smart strategy IMO. When a shark attacks an octopus, that octopus won't try to bite back on that shark but tries to wrap around that shark ASAP.

a) There are more options than the two you present.
b) Your "octopus" strategy can work against low-level amateur competition. It will not work anymore in high-level professional competition. Even elite, world-class grapplers can't survive in high-level MMA without at least some striking skills. Once upon a time, they could. Not any more. These days a pure grappler just charging at his opponent trying to wrap up and get the clinch is just asking to be knocked out.
c) A grappler who learns striking doesn't have to "apply his 2nd class striking skill against his opponent's 1st class striking skill." He can use his "2nd class striking skill" to create opportunities for grappling. Likewise a striker who learns grappling doesn't have to beat the grappler at his own game. He can use his grappling skill to beat his opponent's clinch just long enough to land strikes. (Or if taken down, he can use his grappling skills to escape back to his feet and the striking range.)

This isn't theoretical. We have the results of thousands of fights between highly trained professional fighters to study the results of and this is what they show.

Your "big-fist" tactic for getting the clinch has validity against the average Joe in the street. Against professionals, it isn't enough.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Your "octopus" strategy can work against low-level amateur competition. It will not work anymore in high-level professional competition.
... Your "big-fist" tactic for getting the clinch has validity against the average Joe in the street. Against professionals, it isn't enough.

In

- strategy, it should have no problem to be used to deal with the professionals.
- practice, more testing will be needed and there is no argument on that.

 

[Buka]

Why do you need to anti-XYZ if you have trained that XYZ? For a boxer to say that he trains anti-boxing just make no sense at all.

- You don't need to train jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you can still train "anti-striking".
- If you have trained jab, cross, uppercut, hook, you don't need to train "anti-striking" any more.

I agree, that would make no sense at all. My point was/is the title of this thread "some more thoughts on anti grappling". In order to realistically develop skills against a grappler you have to spend some time in the water. Otherwise, you're just fishing instead of swimming. And you probably ain't using the right bait.

 

[Vajramusti]

I agree, that would make no sense at all. My point was/is the title of this thread "some more thoughts on anti grappling". In order to realistically develop skills against a grappler you have to spend some time in the water. Otherwise, you're just fishing instead of swimming. And you probably ain't using the right bait.

____________________________________________________________________________
very grappler is different to some extent as grappling matches show. Ok to work with some to get an idea about common elements in grappling.
that uou have to deal with.

More important- to develop your own wing chun game.