who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you.

[Hanzou]

You really can't define a word with the same word, you know this don't you?

We have that you consider kicks as strikes, ok, what about the hands, is that only closed fist or are there other options, is it only hands and feet or are there other things that can be used that you would consider a strike..... but then this is starting to feel like pulling teeth to get a detailed answer out of you as to how you define a strike so lets end on this note.

In CMA the body is considered a fist so a strike can be made with just about anything as for how to respond to each picture supplied, that is rather difficult to say since there are variables to each posture and the power (or force) being used is not going to be exactly the same in all situations defined as, say, a Technical mount. So there is no "if you do A I do B" from a CMA perspective. However I am also not saying that a strike is the way to go in all pictures supplied, Qinna would be much better in a couple and there are a couple that rather befuddles me as to how to respond. But I highly doubt I would run into any of those outside of a BJJ or grappling school so I don't much care about them.

Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?

For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold? What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.

 

[ballen0351]

Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?

For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold? What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.

Y do you care they wont work anyway remember

 

[Hanzou]

Y do you care they wont work anyway remember

Sheer curiousity. We're supposed to be having a discussion aren't we?

 

[ballen0351]

Yeah it can happen, just like you can get struck by lightning and hit by a bus in the same day.

Punching should be the last thing you consider in that situation

don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.

Its not really a discussion if your mind is made up and your just looking for another chance to say it wont work

 

[Argus]

Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?

For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold? What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.

Semantics are everything.

Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.

If I may get all Carl Jungs on you, what we also have here is a difference in communication between "sensing," or concrete thinking, and "intuitive," or abstract thinking.

In order to have a productive discussion, you first have to pin down what exactly is being argued about, and any assumptions, premises, definitions, and nuances or approaches that either party may have. This is the effort that Xue was making. Without doing that, you're forever arguing apples and oranges, and you'll be in disagreement even if you're fundamentally arguing the same thing -- to say nothing of furthering any level of personal understanding as a result.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".

There is a good reason that

- kick is good for kicking range,
- punch is good for punching range, and
- lock/throw/ground-game is good for clinching range.

 

[ballen0351]

- kick is good for kicking range,
- punch is good for punching range, and
- lock/throw/ground-game is good for clinching range.

Yep and NEVER violate the above stated rules

 

[Argus]

It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".

Depends entirely on your training, the circumstances of the clinch, where your arms/legs/elbows/shoulders/hands/knees are, where, and how you strike.

In my limited observation of fights in which clinches occur, it seems that a lot of people don't practice striking from, and producing power at close range, and therefore try to strike from outside using wide hooks or uppercuts, and I could see how that could open you up in a clinch. But there are many, many more ways to strike than that.

It's all context. It's not what you do, but how, when, why, and with what intent or effect you do it. I've learned to be very careful to say that "it's not a good idea to do A when B," because chances are, there people out there who have more experience with all aspects of both A and B who know more than I presume to think I do. The more flexible your thinking, the more you're likely to be able to find proper applications for things that you never would have presumed present before.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's not a good idea to strike during the clinch. The reason is simple. You will open yourself up for tighter clinch (wrist range clinch -> elbow range clinch -> shoulder/head range clinch) and you will give your opponent a chance to "crack on your arm (stand up arm bar)". I assume the same will apply to the ground game as well. You will give your opponent a chance for "ground game cracking (arm bar)".

There is a good reason that

- kick is good for kicking range,
- punch is good for punching range, and
- lock/throw/ground-game is good for clinching range.

Actually, there's a whole art to striking effectively from the clinch. Randy Couture is a master of it. So are many high level Muay Thai fighters.

I don't claim to be a master of the tactic (or of anything else), but I do practice some clinch striking concepts that I learned from a JKD instructor.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Semantics are everything.

Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.

If I may get all Carl Jungs on you, what we also have here is a difference in communication between "sensing," or concrete thinking, and "intuitive," or abstract thinking.

In order to have a productive discussion, you first have to pin down what exactly is being argued about, and any assumptions, premises, definitions, and nuances or approaches that either party may have. This is the effort that Xue was making. Without doing that, you're forever arguing apples and oranges, and you'll be in disagreement even if you're fundamentally arguing the same thing -- to say nothing of furthering any level of personal understanding as a result.

Quoted For Truth. I've seen way too many heated arguments (here and elsewhere) go on for a long time despite the fact that the disputants weren't really arguing different points - just making different assumptions about the meaning of the terms being discussed.

 

[Hanzou]

Semantics are everything.

Everyone has their own perspective, built on their specific experiences and assumptions that they bring to the table defining any particular word or idea. Nothing is nearly as clean-cut, with concrete, universally agreed upon definitions as you would like to think -- especially not in something so broad, complicated, and diverse as any particular individuals experience in any number of martial arts which factor into every facet of their understanding of any particular component.

If I may get all Carl Jungs on you, what we also have here is a difference in communication between "sensing," or concrete thinking, and "intuitive," or abstract thinking.

In order to have a productive discussion, you first have to pin down what exactly is being argued about, and any assumptions, premises, definitions, and nuances or approaches that either party may have. This is the effort that Xue was making. Without doing that, you're forever arguing apples and oranges, and you'll be in disagreement even if you're fundamentally arguing the same thing -- to say nothing of furthering any level of personal understanding as a result.

Except we both know what strikes are, and thanks to Tony, the positions are equally understood. I don't believe that my request is asking too much. If you feel that there's some strikes possible from those inferior positions, please describe them. This isn't quantum physics, or trying to figure out the meaning of life. My request is a very simple question that can be met with an equally simple answer.

 

[Hanzou]

Its not really a discussion if your mind is made up and your just looking for another chance to say it wont work

Whike my mind is made up, I'm still curious to see a CMA response to the positions discussed.

 

[ballen0351]

Except we both know what strikes are, and thanks to Tony, the positions are equally understood. I don't believe that my request is asking too much. If you feel that there's some strikes possible from those inferior positions, please describe them. This isn't quantum physics, or trying to figure out the meaning of life. My request is a very simple question that can be met with an equally simple answer.

BUT you already know what strikes are and thanks to Tony you know the positions and after all this isn't quantum physics and with your many claims of your training and understanding of both striking and grappling arts you should already know the simple answers

 

[drop bear]

I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top of you. And part of the OP was



Which is not true if you know anything about power generation, there are more ways that turning the waist to generate a good strike

someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.

 

[Hanzou]

BUT you already know what strikes are and thanks to Tony you know the positions and after all this isn't quantum physics and with your many claims of your training and understanding of both striking and grappling arts you should already know the simple answers

I've never trained in CMA though, so I am genuinely curious about that perspective.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Wow. I'm just asking for what types of strikes you would use in a given positiion. We both know what strikes are, so why are we playing these silly semantic games?

For example, what strikes could be used in high mount? What if someone has you in the scarf hold? What strikes would you use? Etc. I guess I'm just not understanding why the question is so hard to answer. When Jenna asked for a simple way for a non-Grappler to escape a mount, the grapplers gave her concise answer. I'm simply asking for the same.

The fact you do not want to clarify does not make what I am asking silly, and I already answered you in the previous post, which you obviously did not read thoroughly because I also said in there some of those befuddle me.... so please reread it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I've never trained in CMA though, so I am genuinely curious about that perspective.

Based on past experience and reading of your other posts I find this doubtful

 

[Xue Sheng]

someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.

There are other ways to generate power for striking kiddo, don't want to believe, that's ok, I'm good with that..... have a nice day

 

[ballen0351]

someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.

preventing full power does not equal no power.

 

[ballen0351]

someone sitting on your waist prevents power generation. Sitting on any part of your torso, stops that link between feet to waist to punch.

This guy agrees with me

You should tell this guy his punch has no power