Just wanted to be clear on something. My intent is not to bash Larry Tatum. The man is a great Kenpoist. I've had the chance to train with him at a seminar, and I enjoyed it very much. The clip is simply an example, a discussion point, of a standing tech. that is being attempted, while in a horizontal position.
take downs
- Thread starter Manny
- Start date
MattJ
Brown Belt
Genuinely curious and not trying to be argumentive, but which rules are you referring to?
Sure, especially if the striker is on top. My comments about disadvantage were from the perspective of the striker being on the bottom - no hip torque, no weight transfer, limited shoulder rotation, etc.
Agreed, knowledge of all phases of combat are required to be most effective.
I am primarily a Kenpo guy, but I get out to all the local schools
and do at least a class or two, I enjoy seeing what other styles are doing. One of my favorites to visit is Krav Maga. I like Kenpo better for various reasons, but I really enjoy visiting the Krav guys. One of the local schools here put on a Saturday workshop all about surviving the ground in a street fight. It was basically taking the premise that nowadays there are a lot of BJJ guys running around since UFC is so popular how do you deal with BJJ guy on the ground?
Well, we had worked such things in my Kenpo school, but knowing of the Krav guys tenacity, aggressiveness and outright violent approach to dealing with any threat, I checked it out.
Ill continue that story in a minute, but to answer your question directly, the following rules;
1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
The Krav school (having an MMA curriculum at the school and a competition team) had a few of their top BJJ guy roll with us. They also had a couple of guys from local BJJ clubs show up.
The seminar went as follows; We start standing up, one striker, one grappler. We spar until the grappler has a shot, most often he gets it and ends on the ground, choked out.
We film it. We re-watch it as a class. We look for the following;
1.)Once he started the shot or had your hips/legs, could you have (see rule #2 #4 #7 #9 #10 #11)
2.)Once on the ground, how quickly could you have gotten fingers to eyes, get hold of a wrist or fingers (most of us in Kenpo, Krav etc can administer a wrist lock or bend a finger backwards) get a good grip of hair, bite the throat or face, fish hook or head butt?
Then we ran the drill again, at various speeds. Guess what? It was very, very rare that any of the BJJ guys had time to solidify position or sink a submission before they were bitten (all over the face and neck, even arms and legs at times) before they were overwhelmed with fingers all over their face and applying (soft) pressure to the eyes, their heads being turned by handfuls of hair or ears, thumbs and wrists being twisted and bent, and many, many short quick (but soft) whips and chops being landed to the throat.
It was dirty, brutal, ugly and it was shocking how quickly the ground fight turned into who can get to whose eyes first, never mind who could get a RNC or Kimura.
Secondly we ran the drill with a rubber knife in the waist band. Every time someone shot on me they were gutted in moments. (Incidentally I carry a knife 99.8% of the time I leave the house)
Lastly, we ran it with multiple attackers. You dont want to take a guy the ground if he still has a friend standing.
The class only reinforced what I already believed;
1.) You DO NOT want to go to the ground outside the ring and the rules
2.) Its all about MINDSET. If you switch to wrestling mode when you get taken down, you will get choked out. If you stay in your Kenpo/Krav/Kali/Kaju (all my favorites start with K) mode of brutally attacking soft targets, anything goes, you can exploit the fact that the grappler doesnt typically train that way, and the fact that he thinks now I have you.
In the cage, with rules, no weapons etc, yes the grappler has a huge advantage over the striker. In the street, if my mindset is correct, I think he is at a disadvantage.
I have been taken to the ground in a real altercation once in the last year, and that experience bore the truth of the above notion.
Having said all this, a Kenpo guy with some knowledge of basic positioning/transitioning on the ground can utilize everything above with greater success. That is why I would encourage anyone to gain some ground experience but I dont think that means learn BJJ or learn some submissions. I think that is virtually a waste of time for the SD.
Very nice post, and I agree 100%. One of the things that really stuck out to me, one of the things that I find myself saying all the time, is the underlined part.
MattJ
Brown Belt
Not disputing that those things can work, but I think the early limited-rules UFC's (rememeber that downward elbows, groin hits and hair grabs were all legal) showed that most of those things are difficult to get or not nearly as effective as one might think.
Yikes! Good luck with that one in court, LOL.
Agreed, and this is common sense that most grapplers are well aware of.
Again, the early UFC's show otherwise.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
If the UFC has proven anything, it's that you should be the best well-rounded fighter you can be.
Keep in mind, the early UFC's were a promotional stunt for the Gracie family. ...just sayin'
Even so, there were plenty of knock outs and TKO's... even some of the "submission" wins were actually due to strikes (UFC 2 Johnny Rhodes VS David Levicki.)
There have been just as many great "striker" UFC champions as "grappler" UFC champions.
Let's keep things in perspective. There is no be-all-end-all style or school of martial art. Individuals have to work out what works best for them and take what they can from where they can.
You need to train so that you make sure you have the proper tools in your tool box to get the job done when needed; whatever that job may be. That means planning for any eventuality.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic of this thread: Take-downs. LOL
Keep in mind, the early UFC's were a promotional stunt for the Gracie family. ...just sayin'
Even so, there were plenty of knock outs and TKO's... even some of the "submission" wins were actually due to strikes (UFC 2 Johnny Rhodes VS David Levicki.)
There have been just as many great "striker" UFC champions as "grappler" UFC champions.
Let's keep things in perspective. There is no be-all-end-all style or school of martial art. Individuals have to work out what works best for them and take what they can from where they can.
You need to train so that you make sure you have the proper tools in your tool box to get the job done when needed; whatever that job may be. That means planning for any eventuality.
Now, back to the regularly scheduled topic of this thread: Take-downs. LOL
MattJ
Brown Belt
Celtic, I actually agree with your post almost completely. The only line I have a problem with is this:
I see this gets tossed around by a lot of people. While I agree that is true, there was *nothing* in the rules that gave the Gracies, or grapplers of any type, any kind of advantage, beyond merely allowing grappling at all. The implication that the matches were rigged or tilted in grappler's favor is demonstrably false.
Just wanted to clarify that for folks who haven't seen the early UFC's.
I see this gets tossed around by a lot of people. While I agree that is true, there was *nothing* in the rules that gave the Gracies, or grapplers of any type, any kind of advantage, beyond merely allowing grappling at all. The implication that the matches were rigged or tilted in grappler's favor is demonstrably false.
Just wanted to clarify that for folks who haven't seen the early UFC's.
ackks10
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 3
i understand what u r saying, and i watched the LT clip ,and you r right about kenpo schools not teaching alot of ground stuff,(but i work on it) they should
but it is what it is.
Kenpo does not use moves on the ground. Kenpo takes people to the ground. Once your opponent is on the ground you can strike and knee to keep them there, but there is nothing done like arm barrs and the like. They take too much time. In that time, their friends or bystanders might knee you or stomp on you. Kenpo is for the street. On the street, you have to stay modile and will only loose if you stay on the ground.
Thats correct...the original rule list was much shorter than we see today. However, I think its safe to say that we have all seen many fights, in which its stopped momentarily due to a finger to the eye, knee to the groin, etc. Additionally, the Kajukenbo Fight Quest episode, showed Jimmy taking a downward elbow to the back, which pretty much took him out for a few.
Well, I suppose the same could be said about any weapon. Then again, speaking only for myself, if its a matter of life or death, I'm going to grab whatever I can get my hands on, and I'm going to use it. I'll deal with the aftermath later on.
Interestingly enough, I've yet to see any solid methods that grapplers use, of defending against this type of attack. Now, I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on mult. attack defense, but at least they have something. With all of the grappling DVDs out there, I've yet to see one on multi man attacks. Then again, I have heard, many times, the reply, "Well, I'll just kick them in the balls and run." Well, yeah, sure, that is one option, but listening to the people who say that, I get the impression that that is their only option.
The majority of MMA/BJJ schools that I've seen, do not focus on anything but the sport aspect. Sure, there may be some that do, but those classes are a) seperate from the regular ones, and b) not focused on nearly as much as the sport aspect.
I'm not interested in looking to any organized, refereed, one on one, on a mat, sporting event as my litmus test for real combat. Many of the things that I explained worked so well in the Krav Maga class were still illegal in the early UFC's.
This is a non-issue for me in this context.
I think we are probably coming from pretty different backgrounds and experiences. Different paradigm of self defense. I try to avoid altercations these days, but If you shoot on me, you will get stabbed until you stop. I will not let some grappler wrap his arms around my neck because I was too concerned about the jury to take immediate action. If I don't have a knife, the tactics and strikes will be just as brutal. If someone puts their hands on me, (especially if my family is with me) my default position is that they mean to do me the gravest of harm.
Not in my experience. It never ceases to amaze me how many guys talk about "taking him down and choking him out" like it is a magic pill. If they were so aware of the problems of going to the ground in a real altercation, they would spend less time rolling and more time in other arts. They don't, because they train for competition, naively believing that "early UFC's" are realistic examples of using BJJ in the street.
Early UFC's show that BJJ/Wrestling works very well in one on one, controlled, reffereed competitions. They show nothing more, nothing less.
I have had the (unfortunate) opportunity to apply my tactics against those who chose to try and take me to the ground and "grapple". Experience bears out my previous conclusions.
MattJ
Brown Belt
Really? Are you familiar with the (lack of) rules of the early UFC's? The rules that you quoted are for the Unified Rules of MMA, which came long after the original UFC's. There seems to be a lot of confusion about that from some people. But in any case, I wasn't claiming the UFC to represent street fighting. My point was the resistance offered in that type of compeitition is similar to any other kind of fight. A punch is a punch, etc.
What makes you think that? I don't recall you asking about my background.
Again, not arguing you right to do whatever. Just making a point of the consequenses of stabbing someone.
I can only assume you don't train with many grapplers. Lots of them come from striking and RBSD backgrounds.
With all due respect, you are in the minority in that respect. The popularity of grappling speaks for itself in that regard. This is not a knock on any non-grappling art, just my own experience.
MattJ
Brown Belt
Sure, again, these things *can* work. The problem is people that think that they will stop every opponent all the time. I can also think of many times when groin kicks and eye-pokes happened in the UFC, and the fight didn't stop, and the guy that got kneed/poked won (remember Hughes/Trigg 2)?
Bleh. IMHO, Kenpo has some of the worst multi-opponent defense I have ever seen - many of the techniques actually keep you inbetween the opponents! Madness, especially for anyone that has sparred multi-opponent before. Aikido is much better as far as I'm concerned. Aikido footwork is some of the best for that situation.
Probably because multi-opponent defense requires one to stay upright. if so much as one of the opponents gets you down, you are toast. grappling arts actually help in this regardm since you learn to handle the clinch and resist takedowns, not to mention escape if you DO get taken down. But the mentality of expecting one art to be complete is pretty ridiculous to me. Would anyone expect a boxing class to teach them about kicking? To disregard grappling because of limited multi-opponent technique is pretty silly.
That is basically what you learn in kenpo, LOL.
True, most do. But as I have mentioned before, the resistance element is the same in competition or on the street.
But, I'm the first one to also say that I'm not a member of the 1 shot/1 kill club. IMHO, there're way too many people, who think that the eye shot, the groin hit, etc are the 'deadly' fight enders. For me, I use things to set up other shots. Can the 1 shot KO happen? Of course, but again, I'm relying on a series of hits, not just one.
You did read what I said right? I said I'm not saying that Kenpo has the market cornered on multi attack defense, but at least they have something. Personally I think many of the weapon defenses suck, but at least the art offers something. IMO, its up to each individual to make sure that their skills are up to par. If that means looking at another art, ie: crosstraining, to get that quality defense, then so be it.
You're right...it does require you to remain upright. So if thats the case, how can the art (BJJ) be billed as some complete, ultimate fighting art? Its not complete, as its missing something.
As for disregarding something...LOL...I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you've really ever read any of my past posts, you'd have seen that I'm a big advocate for Kenpoists to learn more about the ground, because IMHO, that is one big area that Kenpo is lacking in. I've also said, that if one really wants to be complete, you'll be well rounded in all ranges...punching, kicking, clinch, grappling, weapons. Not sure where you got the idea that I was dismissing anything. Everything, IMO, has a potential weakness, shortcoming, whatever you want to call it. Kenpo IMO, is weak on the ground, yet its a pretty good stand up art. BJJ is weak when it comes to stand up, yet it pretty much kicks *** on the ground.
LMAO, and if thats the only thing, the only option that someone has, they better re-evaluate their training, because something is seriously lacking. This is why the MMA guys always poke fun at the TMAs, always talking about their d3adl3y shots. Gotta have more in the tool box than just a groin kick, eye shot, etc. Once again, as I've said many times, dont rely on JUST those shots, but instead, rely on a series of things to get the job done.
Yes, the resistance is there in both, but obviously both are 2 different things. You're going to fight like you train.
Was biting allowed? Was eye gouging allowed? Those were the primary two I mentioned earlier, that you completely ignored.
Sure you were. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement? You don't think it represents a real fight, but you think the level of resistance is similar to any other type of fight? You either think it stands as a representation of street fighting, or you don't. If you don't, then you CAN'T USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WILL OR WILL NOT WORK. At least not to the degree you do.
I don't need to know your background. I have LEO and military friends who can't fight their way out of a paper bag, but their "backgrounds" would suggest otherwise to most. What makes me think that we come from different backgrounds and have a different paradigm concerning self defense is that 1.) you refer to "early UFC's" as your chief example and 2.) you essentially dismissed the knife training I mentioned because it may get me into trouble "in court". The fact that you would mention either in the context of this discussion indicates to me that our experiences and perceptions are worlds apart.
I do in fact, although it is difficult to get them to want to try and shoot for a takedown or work for a submission when they know you wont abide by BJJ/wrestling "rules and fouls". No one wants to get bit now do they?
I know several grapplers who moved into the realm of RBSD. I don't know any who still find much value in submission work etc, as it does not work when the "reality" of weapons, multi attackers, and biting, clawing dirty SOB's come into play.
I appreciate the respect, and despite our difference in opinion you have been cordial. However, and with all due respect, I am quite comfortable in the minority opinion. It is when I find myself following the masses that I stop and reevaluate. I do not get my direction regarding self defense from what is trendy at the time. BJJ is popular precisely because of the type of events we are discussing, and because you can study it without getting punched in the face. Were I to use popularity as a gauge for quality as you suggest, well then, I guess I would listen to teeny bop prefab bands, and start shopping at Hollister or something. No way my friend.
MattJ
Brown Belt
OK, I guess we're in agreement then.
Yes, I did.
I think this is where we disagree. I don't see having bad techniques as a positive, even if it's "something". Between the multi-opponent techniques in EPAK and nothing, I would take nothing. Simple instinct would be better. I agree that most of the weapons stuff is not great either, but some of them are workable - moreso than the 2-mans. JMO.
???????
I'm not sure if this is directed at me. I made a specific point of saying that expecting ANY art to be complete is ridiculous. You'll have to explain what you mean, or who you were directing this to here. Sensing a bit of hostility here......?
I didn't mean to imply that *you* were disregarding, and attempted to word my post non-specifically ("the mentality" instead of "your mentality", "anyone" instead of "you", etc). Fail on my part, I guess.
Agreed! Cross-training FTW.
Not sure what that means (seems to cut both ways, yes?), but OK.
K831 -
I didn't ignore them. My response was to your list of the Unified Rules of MMA. My point hasn't changed, though. Relying on those against people that train MMA is not a safe bet, any more than anything else is.
I'm quite sure you can't read my mind. I clearly said that UFC DOES NOT EQUAL STREETFIGHT. That the resistance is similar does not change my argument. Boxing and Judo also offer similar levels of opponent resistance (albeit narrower in scope), but I make no claims for those arts as being "a representation of street fighting", either. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
Boxing punches and Judo throws are mechanically identical to their streetfighting counterparts. That is what I meant.
I did not dismiss (the effectiveness of) your knife example - I only made a point of the legal consequences of stabbing someone........who may not even be armed? But in any case, a quick check of respective profiles indicates more similarity than not. Your assumption appears to be incorrect.
Some don't mind working different scenarios.
TigerCraneGuy
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 5
Agree 110%.
And before anyone asks, I train Speakman's 5.0, which does a huge amount of groundwork; I may not be crash-hot at it, but the ground is not unfamiliar territory for me. Bottom-line: I'm not an anti-groundwork naysayer.
That said, I've now got a number of Jim Grover / Kelly McCann's Modern Combatives DVDs, and his anti-takedown material is pretty brutal. Very much along the lines of the Krav guys you mention. Like them, he's extremely aggressive in his approach to groundfighting. Here are just two examples from Disc 2:
1) When he demonstrated his version of the full-sprawl, he did so with twin elbow shots to the back, dropping his weight into the maneauver.
2) When he fired a barrage of palm-heels and hammerfists (combatives guys call it 'cycling', I think) to his training partner's back (and the guy was HUGE) from a hasty half-sprawl position, he wound up with massive counterclockwise circles and literally dropped the strikes in with his full weight behind them again.
3) Needless to say, though built like a tank, his huge training partner face-planted almost immediately. Both times. And from what I observed, said big guy was really shooting in hard and fast. No compliant crap there!
Sort of like the FightQuest episode MJS mentioned, where Jimmy got dropped with an aggressive downward elbow. Seemed pretty effective: gotta try that (albeit with open palms) in sparring sometime.
Now just imagine combining that sort of power-generation with a knife fast-drawn to a Pakal reverse grip (been playing around with James Keatings' DrawPoint material as well).
Puts things in perspective and forces one to be more wary of when and where you attempt to go to the ground.
Cheers
TCG
Ok.
Someone could take this statement as being contradicting. The way I read this is...you say all the mutli man techs suck. I say its better than nothing. You say that most of the weapon stuff sucks. I agree. But then you say that some are workable. So we have bad weapon techs., but some are workable, but you dont think that having 'something' is positive, if its bad? Did any of that make sense? LOL.
Seriously though...this is why I take alot of the stuff with a grain of salt. I tell people that I cross train, to which I'm told that I dont have to and I do it, because I dont understand the system. Hmm...well, that may be the case, but when I look at some of the stuff, and then look at arts that specialize in certain areas, and then compare the 2....lets just say that I'm happy and thankful with the cross training.
I also think that alot of the time, people take the techs. as set in stone, they can't be changed. I say why not? What works for me, may not work for my teacher, you or anyone else. So, I'd think that we should be taking the stuff and trying to make it work for us, even if it means making a change. As for the multi man techs....again, I say take 'em with a grain of salt. Of course, I'm looking at them, maybe taking some ideas they're teaching, and figure things out on the fly. I'm not crazy about some of the multi man Tracy techs either, so I guess it goes both ways. LOL. That was directed at what you said here:
"Probably because multi-opponent defense requires one to stay upright. if so much as one of the opponents gets you down, you are toast. grappling arts actually help in this regardm since you learn to handle the clinch and resist takedowns, not to mention escape if you DO get taken down. But the mentality of expecting one art to be complete is pretty ridiculous to me. Would anyone expect a boxing class to teach them about kicking? To disregard grappling because of limited multi-opponent technique is pretty silly."
And no, no hostility was intended. Sorry if thats the impression that you got.
I've said many times, that no art is complete, yet how many MMA nutriders do we see on various forums, say that it is? IMO, there're systems that do specialize in certain areas, and we should be looking at those, to see how they address certain things, compared to the way Kenpo does. Ex: Kenpo has takedown defenses, so does BJJ. BJJ is a proven grapling art. Test yourself against the BJJ guy, using the Kenpo defense. Will it work? If so, great. If not, we need to figure out why. This is what I do, and why I love to crosstrain. No problem.
Simple misunderstanding. Happens all the time on forums. I believe this was in response to your comment on ring fighting and street fighting. We both agree that there is resistance. I was simply saying that since both are different, at least IMO they are, that there will be a difference in the way techs are done. I think that you and K381 were going back and forth about this, to which it seemed that you both disagreed with each other as well.
TigerCraneGuy,
Agreed. I'll have to check out the DVD's you mentioned.
You are correct though, you can stop most shots, and once on the ground, you can inflict such violent damage that very, very few people will ever sink a submission
I firmly believe that the study of submission grappling is virtually worthless in its translation to street SD. Learn some basic positioning and transitions so you don't panic.
There are and always will be problems with this discussion though. First, the honest truth is, many people have not experienced the degree of violence in their lives that would allow them to comprehend the type of approach (beyond the theoretical) that would allow them to deal with a ground fighter the way we are discussing. Second, many people hesitate to commit truly violent acts. Most peoples natures, inhibitions, social programing etc would cause them to hesitate before thrusting their finger 2 knuckles deep into someones eye and into their Grey matter. They would hesitate to bite through someones throat or jugular. Because of that, there is a disconnect when this topic is discussed. Third, people training MMA, competition, BJJ etc have to defend what they put time into and no one on that side wants to say "what I am doing isn't really about warfare, or SD". Add to that that even most of the skilled teachers and trainers out there haven't ever actually fought for there lives. Of course, many of those who have are only able to teach the easiest and safest things to learn. The first Marine Force Recon guy in my AKKI Kenpo class really enlighten me to the whole "spec ops techniques" ploy.
Hence the ongoing argument.
Yes, we had a little communication breakdown there. I have hard time understanding the "I don't think the ring and the street are the same but I use the ring as my reference and that isn't contradictory" line of thinking.
It is what it is. I know what I know and I know what I've been through. This is just fun banter and a chance to find a few like minded guys across the country!
Agreed. I'll have to check out the DVD's you mentioned.
You are correct though, you can stop most shots, and once on the ground, you can inflict such violent damage that very, very few people will ever sink a submission
I firmly believe that the study of submission grappling is virtually worthless in its translation to street SD. Learn some basic positioning and transitions so you don't panic.
There are and always will be problems with this discussion though. First, the honest truth is, many people have not experienced the degree of violence in their lives that would allow them to comprehend the type of approach (beyond the theoretical) that would allow them to deal with a ground fighter the way we are discussing. Second, many people hesitate to commit truly violent acts. Most peoples natures, inhibitions, social programing etc would cause them to hesitate before thrusting their finger 2 knuckles deep into someones eye and into their Grey matter. They would hesitate to bite through someones throat or jugular. Because of that, there is a disconnect when this topic is discussed. Third, people training MMA, competition, BJJ etc have to defend what they put time into and no one on that side wants to say "what I am doing isn't really about warfare, or SD". Add to that that even most of the skilled teachers and trainers out there haven't ever actually fought for there lives. Of course, many of those who have are only able to teach the easiest and safest things to learn. The first Marine Force Recon guy in my AKKI Kenpo class really enlighten me to the whole "spec ops techniques" ploy.
Hence the ongoing argument.
Yes, we had a little communication breakdown there. I have hard time understanding the "I don't think the ring and the street are the same but I use the ring as my reference and that isn't contradictory" line of thinking.
It is what it is. I know what I know and I know what I've been through. This is just fun banter and a chance to find a few like minded guys across the country!
