Turtle Defense/ Krav cover

[wab25]

Every time you drop low, you will give your opponent's a chance to crash you from top.

Here is some video of the taller guy, changing levels and taking down the shorter guy from below. In some, he is going under the the other guys head punch. In others, he feints the guy to believe the attack is to the head, then drops under.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here is some video of the taller guy, changing levels and taking down the shorter guy from below.

We can only discuss "risk level" in general. We can not discuss individual case.

Here are examples that your level change can put yourself in bad spot. There are many throws that won't put yourself in such bad spot. In other words, there are other throws that are less risky.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We can only discuss "risk level" in general. We can not discuss individual case.

Here are examples that your level change can put yourself in bad spot. There are many throws that won't put yourself in such bad spot. In other words, there are other throws that are less risky.

And yet, against people trained to defend against takedowns, going low is the most reliable takedown method in MMA. On paper, they seem more risky, but when executed at the right moment (like any technique, they require that), they are more effective than risky.

 

[wab25]

Here are examples that your level change can put yourself in bad spot. There are many throws that won't put yourself in such bad spot. In other words, there are other throws that are less risky.

So, are they doing it wrong in MMA? In this thread and the other thread, you don't like double leg or single leg take downs, as they do not leave your hands free to protect your head. You don't like judo style hip throws, because the other guy has a free hand. Now you don't like level changing as it is risky to be on the bottom. Yet these moves, especially the level change into the double and single leg take downs, have been proven to be very successful. (see the stats I posted in the other thread, of 800 fights containing 2000 take downs ) Are they really doing it wrong? If what they are doing is wrong, why is it working so much?

 

[hoshin1600]

as much as i like to ponder the significance of theoretical quandaries,,,,sometimes theory is BS. because its not so much a tested theory and more of an fantasy world.
anyone who has trained with a proficient MMA or BJJ guy will tell you, with a good set up how fast you land on your butt or back. if you havnt worked it a lot, it happens so quick the brain does not have time to register what is going on.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So, are they doing it wrong in MMA? In this thread and the other thread, you don't like double leg or single leg take downs, as they do not leave your hands free to protect your head. You don't like judo style hip throws, because the other guy has a free hand. Now you don't like level changing as it is risky to be on the bottom. Yet these moves, especially the level change into the double and single leg take downs, have been proven to be very successful. (see the stats I posted in the other thread, of 800 fights containing 2000 take downs ) Are they really doing it wrong? If what they are doing is wrong, why is it working so much?

If you can control your opponent's arms when you take him down, you will have less chance to be punched. By using this guideline, some throws have higher risk than others.

1. Under hook, over hook - you control both of your opponent's arms.
2. Head lock, hip throw - you control one of your opponent's arms.
3. Bear hug, single leg, double legs - both of your opponent's arms are free.

As for the risky factor, 3 > 2 > 1.

When you use both arms to deal with both of your opponent's arm, you will need to use "leg skill" (such as cut, hook, scoop, break, block, bite, lift, spring, twist, ...). IMO, since most MMA fighters have to train striking, take down, and ground game, they may not have enough time to develop their leg skill. It's very common that they choose take downs that don't require leg skill.

The head lock diagonal cut throw will have less chance to be punched compare to double legs. It requires to use the leg skill "cut".

 

[wab25]

When you use both arms to deal with both of your opponent's arm, you will need to use "leg skill" (such as cut, hook, scoop, break, block, bite, lift, spring, twist, ...). IMO, since most MMA fighters have to train striking, take down, and ground game, they may not have enough time to develop their leg skill. It's very common that they choose take downs that don't require leg skill.

The head lock diagonal cut throw will have less chance to be punched compare to double legs. It requires to use the leg skill "cut".

I am having a hard time trying to think of a UFC, Bellator, Strikeforce or Pride fighter that does not have the skill required for that diagonal cut throw.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I am having a hard time trying to think of a UFC, Bellator, Strikeforce or Pride fighter that does not have the skill required for that diagonal cut throw.

I truly don't know why this throw is not popular in UFC. May be someone can tell me.

 

[drop bear]

I truly don't know why this throw is not popular in UFC. May be someone can tell me.

because people move around.

Anyway. This is dan kelly who is basically mr judo for MMA.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

because people move around.

If you can get your opponent into a clinch, he will not be able to move around.

I agree to turn your back into your opponent may not be a good idea. But face to face throws don't have such issue.

You don't see single leg and double legs used in Sanda and Chinese wrestling. Since single leg and double legs require your legs to be so close to the ground, if your opponent puts a bit pressure on top of you, you will have 1 hand and 1 knee (or 2 knees, or 2 hands) on the ground. In Sanda and Chinese wrestling, the fight will stop and the other person will get 2 points (for any 2 points besides your feet touch the ground).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

anyone who has trained with a proficient MMA or BJJ guy will tell you, with a good set up how fast you land on your butt or back. if you havnt worked it a lot, it happens so quick the brain does not have time to register what is going on.

I still remember in 1983 Columbus Ohio Chinese wrestling tournament. During the championship fight, my opponent was a wrestler. He attacked me with single leg twice and I let him to kiss the dirt twice. Both rounds lasted for only 7 seconds. That was the easiest 2 rounds that I ever had in my tournament experience. On the wrestling mat, my downward pulling counter against single leg have very high successful rate. Since 1982, nobody has ever used single leg to take me down yet.

Here is an example to use downward pulling against single leg (1933 in the 5th National Kuo Shu Tournament, Nanking, China).

 

[wab25]

You don't see single leg and double legs used in Sanda and Chinese wrestling. Since single leg and double legs require your legs to be so close to the ground, if your opponent puts a bit pressure on top of you, you will have 1 hand and 1 knee (or 2 knees, or 2 hands) on the ground. In Sanda and Chinese wrestling, the fight will stop and the other person will get 2 points (for any 2 points besides your feet touch the ground).

Here we go. I bolded the part in your quote. This explains the differences. The rules. The rules determine what techniques are more effective. Your diagonal cut throw, is extremely ineffective... in boxing. You will be warned, lose points and disqualified for using it. In Judo, Judo throws are highly effective. Double and single leg take downs are not, as they are illegal now. In Chinese wrestling, if you knee or hand touches the ground, you lose 2 points and action stops. This will make double and single leg take downs less effective and much higher risk... in Chinese wrestling. Your diagonal cut, will be a higher percentage... in Chinese wrestling.

However, the rules are different in MMA. You do not lose 2 points and the action does not stop when your knee or hand hits the ground. In these rules, double and single leg take downs are very effective. The risks and dangers of attempting double and single leg take downs are present, as you state... but they still are quite effective. The stats show that your diagonal cut throw is used, and does work in MMA, however double and single leg take downs work and are used successfully a lot more.

I truly don't know why this throw is not popular in UFC. May be someone can tell me.

I will tell you. In UFC the rules are different than Chinese wrestling. The UFC does not penalize you for your knee hitting the mat, nor does it stop the action. Essentially, the rules of UFC do not add extra risk to attempting either the double, single leg take downs or the diagonal cut. The UFC rules favor and allow both. Under these rules, the double and single leg take downs are more effective.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you can control your opponent's arms when you take him down, you will have less chance to be punched. By using this guideline, some throws have higher risk than others.

1. Under hook, over hook - you control both of your opponent's arms.
2. Head lock, hip throw - you control one of your opponent's arms.
3. Bear hug, single leg, double legs - both of your opponent's arms are free.

As for the risky factor, 3 > 2 > 1.

When you use both arms to deal with both of your opponent's arm, you will need to use "leg skill" (such as cut, hook, scoop, break, block, bite, lift, spring, twist, ...). IMO, since most MMA fighters have to train striking, take down, and ground game, they may not have enough time to develop their leg skill. It's very common that they choose take downs that don't require leg skill.

The head lock diagonal cut throw will have less chance to be punched compare to double legs. It requires to use the leg skill "cut".

On paper, and in theory, it makes sense. But the evidence is that - even against elite strikers - good entry on a double-leg (no hands to protect head or control arms) rarely results in getting hit, and almost never in a significant hit. It usually results in the elite striker being on the ground quickly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I truly don't know why this throw is not popular in UFC. May be someone can tell me.

I suspect the training to defend the Muay Thai clinch (and I suspect all serious MMA fighters train to defend that) would also counter this throw's entry.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you can get your opponent into a clinch, he will not be able to move around.

I agree to turn your back into your opponent may not be a good idea. But face to face throws don't have such issue.

You don't see single leg and double legs used in Sanda and Chinese wrestling. Since single leg and double legs require your legs to be so close to the ground, if your opponent puts a bit pressure on top of you, you will have 1 hand and 1 knee (or 2 knees, or 2 hands) on the ground. In Sanda and Chinese wrestling, the fight will stop and the other person will get 2 points (for any 2 points besides your feet touch the ground).

That's an example of where rules in a competition make an otherwise useful technique too risky.

 

[drop bear]

On paper, and in theory, it makes sense. But the evidence is that - even against elite strikers - good entry on a double-leg (no hands to protect head or control arms) rarely results in getting hit, and almost never in a significant hit. It usually results in the elite striker being on the ground quickly.

It doesn't make sense in theory. You need your hips to strike. Which you no longer have.

You also need a link to the ground to strike. And you don't have that either.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It doesn't make sense in theory. You need your hips to strike. Which you no longer have.

You also need a link to the ground to strike. And you don't have that either.

The "in theory" version tends to be unaware of the speed at which the transition happens - blocking hips and stealing the ground. I'm relatively slow at entering for things like that compared to a decent wrestler, and I'd bet my entry against my own strikes.

Now get that decent wrestler and put him in my place, and that entry is a dangerous weapon.