Did anybody who practices wrestling have hang-ups about guys touching them?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sure there are vulnerabilities in all techniques but they are not all equal. The vulnerability of a jab does not equal the vulnerability of a takedown.
[/quote]
It somewhat depends on who is doing the jab though, and how the takedown is executed. A low single would be very difficult to catch someone in with a punch, knee or other strike for example. A high double, maybe easier, but still not as easy as some would have you think.
Also, you have to take into considerable how the person sets up their technique. If one were to just try to shoot a high single or double from kicking range, with no feints, fakes, angle changes, etc…to set it up, then yeah, catching them with a knee, punch, elbow, or other strike on the way in might be a plausible means of defense.
But, if they are setting their techniques up with strikes, using feints, fakes, angle changes, broken rythm, etc…to set the takedown up, and are starting their takedown from arms length away (which is the distance that one should initiate a takedown from), then it is very, very difficult to catch them coming in. In fact, if set up right, and executed explosively like it should be, then it would only be by luck that you might catch someone coming in.
Well. I don’t disagree that the classic wrestling technique of dropping the hands and raising the head can get you in trouble. But, you aren’t really just dropping to your knees and pulling your opponent’s legs towards you if you are executing the takedown right. You are actually changing your level (to take away the opponent’s ability to punch you with maximal force) and trying to drive through them.
If it’s a single then you grab one of their legs on the way in and attempt to stand them up on one foot (thus greatly decreasing their punching power) and if you do it right, your head is tucked for protection so even getting a good hit in is difficult. Plus you don’t just stand there in that position, you are actively trying to take them to the ground.
If it’s a double, then as you drive through them you catch their legs to prevent them from being able to step back and regain their balance. A punch, elbow or any strike from this position will have minimal damage capability.
Also keep in mind, that a punch needs to have the correct distance to be effective. An explosive shot (if done with a good set up from the correct distance) will smother strikes a lot of strikes on the way in.
Well, first the forehead is one of the least vulnerable places on the skull, so if one is going to take a knee strike, there are much worse places than in the middle of the forehead. Also, Kos was basically just a wrestler at that point and was not setting up his shot correctly.
Yes, that’s true. But, the question is, could you actually do them effectively in real time against a skilled takedown artist? It’s also good to consider that most grappling is done on soft padded surfaces. If a good wrestler shot a high double on you on pavement, you’d be better be damn sure that your defense was going to work because if it doesn’t, your head is going to get split open when it hits the pavement.
You are missing a real simple premise Sento. To do the takedown you have to get really close to your opponent with your head unguarded. The head is unguarded because you need your guarding hands to grab the legs for the takedown. And you are leading in with your head.
I am sure that someone who is good at it can be tricky to deal with. Just like someone who is good at countering it can be dangerous. ie Koschek v Sanchez.
In a street fight a good counter would be an eye gouge or attack the spine. If a person is in side stance so their groin is protected it is going to be a lot harder to get a double leg takedown.
It’s alright for MMA and it’s something to have in your repetoire so you are versatile on the street. But there are ways it could go terribly wrong.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Did anybody who practices wrestling have hang-ups about guys touching them?[/quote]
I still wrestle, and no. Why would you? Are you really that insecure about yourself that if someone else slams you to the ground you feel gay? Atleast i dont.
[quote]Andyyboy wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Did anybody who practices wrestling have hang-ups about guys touching them?
I still wrestle, and no. Why would you? Are you really that insecure about yourself that if someone else slams you to the ground you feel gay? Atleast i dont.[/quote]
Quoted for truth. I always noticed that the football players did a lot more ‘touching’ than the wrestlers.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
You are missing a real simple premise Sento. To do the takedown you have to get really close to your opponent with your head unguarded. The head is unguarded because you need your guarding hands to grab the legs for the takedown. And you are leading in with your head.
[/quote]
I’m not missing that premise. But, it’s actually the fact that you are so close to your opponent that somewhat negates the fact that your head is unguarded. In boxing the safest place for your head to be (other than completely out of range of your opponent’s punches obviously) is right on his belt line. Now yes, it’s true that boxers can’t strike the spine and can’t knee, so that’s not the case during a MMA or street fight.
But the principle that one of the safest places for the head to be (in a striking context) is actually resting on the body still holds true. A good wrestler/grappler will have their head actually against your body (in the case of a single it will be in a similar place to the above boxing example), only his spine is upright (hips below his head), which makes it much more difficult to attack the spine effectively.
And again, I agree that there is a split second of time between when he/she initiates the takedown and where they are in the above position where they are open to a counter strike. The question is though, could you really pull that off in real time against a skilled takedown artist, who sets up the takedown correctly. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Just like with a jab, maybe you could slip it and come over the top with a right hook, cuff it and return fire with your own jab, or some other counter, but maybe you couldn’t. No technique is fool proof, and takedowns can be just as effective and hard to deal with as punches if done correctly.
Agreed.
Those are potential counters. But, first you must stop the takedown in order to buy yourself enough time to attack the eyes or the spine. Also, if the takedown artist knows what they’re doing, attacking the eyes can be very difficult, as well as attacking the spine. If you know how to properly sprawl and get the person outstretched, then yeah the spine is fairly easy to attack (via strike, cross face, quarter nelson, etc…). But you need to stop the takedown first.
Side stance would make it somewhat harder to get a double, but the single would be easier. Also, if the attacker can reach both their arms around your leg, they could easily attack the groin from that range. You also basically nullify your rear arm and leg from a striking perspective from a side stance, and have very little side to side balance. The side stance is great for striking with the lead arm and leg, but not so great for fighting a grappler or MMA/street fight scenarios.
[quote]
It’s alright for MMA and it’s something to have in your repetoire so you are versatile on the street. But there are ways it could go terribly wrong.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you there. It could go very wrong in the street, even if you were successful, you have now greatly limited your mobility so if other attackers come into the picture you are now at a disadvantage. Purposely taking the fight to the ground is unadvisable in most cases, but there are scenarios where it would be an important skill to have. And just because it might not be the most practical skill doesn’t make it any less dangerous or any less of a threat if someone else does it to you.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Just remember those guys are being good sports. Because there are some real vulnerabilities involved in those takedowns.
Sure there are, there are vulnerabilities in just about every single conceivable take-down, punch, kick or unarmed attack known to man. That doesn’t mean that the take-downs aren’t still very effective, or that just because you know the vulnerabilities that you would be able to exploit them against that high level of a grappler.
There are vulnerabilities in a western jab, but that doesn’t make it any less effective of a technique. Nor does it mean that you could exploit those vulnerabilities against the likes of Ali, Roy Jones, or Sugar Ray Leonard.
Sure there are vulnerabilities in all techniques but they are not all equal. The vulnerability of a jab does not equal the vulnerability of a takedown.
With a take down you are dropping to your knees with your arms outreached and your head just sitting there like a giant zit begging to be popped. The head and neck are not something that is wise to leave vulnerable. It is also not advisable to drop to your knees with your legs spread apart pulling your opponents leg towards you either…
I am sure that if someone is good at it they can catch you slipping. Just like if someone has some counters worked out and they are good at them, you could end up in a world of hurt. ie on TUF Josh Koschek tried to takedown Diego Sanchez who timed him coming and planted a knee in the middle of his forehead that left his entire forehead black and blue. Koschek is really lucky he didn’t get serious brain damage or killed from that.
There are a few other things you could do to counter a takedown that would not be good for the other guy. That head and neck region is a real important vital zone.
[/quote]
I think you have a distorted view of what a “take down” is. Not that it’s you fault given the common appearance in MA media. The proper execution of a low shot does not necessarily involve going to your knees with your head perched and ready to be blasted. You needn’t expose your head to take someone down. A chest-to-chest clinch into a body throw keeps your head tucked away from any major danger as do most greco style upper body throws. And the extent to which getting to the clinch might force you to be unguarded would be the same as any striker getting to a thai clinch.
So not every “take down” is the random charge of the mighty scrub. Many of them are as lightning quick as a jab but with more situation altering power than any jab.
Also, I would say that the statistics stand in favor of strikes to the head area not being effective as a counter to most take downs. I’ve seen countless take downs, even poor ones, succeed despite hard looking hits to the noodle. Without the legs to generate power in the strike they tend to be not as hard as needed. In contrast I have seen only a handful of knees, punches or even elbows stymie the takedown, even bad ones.
Also using strikes as the riposte to the take down is an all-in bet. if it fails you are ass down face up looking like a surprised prom date. whereas if your riposte to the take down is the head-and-whizzer or some other variety of sprawl then you have a bit better chance of ending up back in neutral or in the advantage.
that being said, it’s not that strikes are ineffective, far from it, but their use in countering the takedown, without the assistance or setup of proper wrestling counters, is not necessarily sound.
It just seems statistically that the take down succeeds against strikes to the head without suffering much disadvantage.
-chris
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You are missing a real simple premise Sento. To do the takedown you have to get really close to your opponent with your head unguarded. The head is unguarded because you need your guarding hands to grab the legs for the takedown. And you are leading in with your head.
I’m not missing that premise. But, it’s actually the fact that you are so close to your opponent that somewhat negates the fact that your head is unguarded. In boxing the safest place for your head to be (other than completely out of range of your opponent’s punches obviously) is right on his belt line. Now yes, it’s true that boxers can’t strike the spine and can’t knee, so that’s not the case during a MMA or street fight.
But the principle that one of the safest places for the head to be (in a striking context) is actually resting on the body still holds true. A good wrestler/grappler will have their head actually against your body (in the case of a single it will be in a similar place to the above boxing example), only his spine is upright (hips below his head), which makes it much more difficult to attack the spine effectively.
And again, I agree that there is a split second of time between when he/she initiates the takedown and where they are in the above position where they are open to a counter strike. The question is though, could you really pull that off in real time against a skilled takedown artist, who sets up the takedown correctly. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Just like with a jab, maybe you could slip it and come over the top with a right hook, cuff it and return fire with your own jab, or some other counter, but maybe you couldn’t. No technique is fool proof, and takedowns can be just as effective and hard to deal with as punches if done correctly.
I am sure that someone who is good at it can be tricky to deal with. Just like someone who is good at countering it can be dangerous. ie Koschek v Sanchez.
Agreed.
In a street fight a good counter would be an eye gouge or attack the spine. If a person is in side stance so their groin is protected it is going to be a lot harder to get a double leg takedown.
Those are potential counters. But, first you must stop the takedown in order to buy yourself enough time to attack the eyes or the spine. Also, if the takedown artist knows what they’re doing, attacking the eyes can be very difficult, as well as attacking the spine. If you know how to properly sprawl and get the person outstretched, then yeah the spine is fairly easy to attack (via strike, cross face, quarter nelson, etc…). But you need to stop the takedown first.
Side stance would make it somewhat harder to get a double, but the single would be easier. Also, if the attacker can reach both their arms around your leg, they could easily attack the groin from that range. You also basically nullify your rear arm and leg from a striking perspective from a side stance, and have very little side to side balance. The side stance is great for striking with the lead arm and leg, but not so great for fighting a grappler or MMA/street fight scenarios.
It’s alright for MMA and it’s something to have in your repetoire so you are versatile on the street. But there are ways it could go terribly wrong.
I don’t disagree with you there. It could go very wrong in the street, even if you were successful, you have now greatly limited your mobility so if other attackers come into the picture you are now at a disadvantage. Purposely taking the fight to the ground is unadvisable in most cases, but there are scenarios where it would be an important skill to have. And just because it might not be the most practical skill doesn’t make it any less dangerous or any less of a threat if someone else does it to you.[/quote]
The counter to anything in the street is to pull your centerline shank and stick him till he decides to fuck off. I’m not too sure how many “street fights” any of you all have been in but they rarely happen with two unarmed guys going at it with their respective kung fu battle skills. Criminals aren’t looking for a fight they are looking for easy cash or sex. check the statistics within the entire US, street altercations with equal armament happen never. So if you are countering a takedown on the street that means you have managed to disarm him of the knife or pistol that he has more than 90% of the time and obviously are easily able to handle him.
What I’m saying is that “street fights” are not fights. they are unequal force encounters. so if you find yourself in a duke-it-out situation on the street, chances are you are being filmed in Hong Kong.
Also, “the street” is loaded with broken glass and the other guys friends, so I wouldn’t put all my chips on the table thinking that my stance or my strikes will keep me on my nikes.
-chris
[quote]Avocado wrote:
The counter to anything in the street is to pull your centerline shank and stick him till he decides to fuck off. I’m not too sure how many “street fights” any of you all have been in but they rarely happen with two unarmed guys going at it with their respective kung fu battle skills. Criminals aren’t looking for a fight they are looking for easy cash or sex. check the statistics within the entire US, street altercations with equal armament happen never. So if you are countering a takedown on the street that means you have managed to disarm him of the knife or pistol that he has more than 90% of the time and obviously are easily able to handle him.
[/quote]
A few. And I’ve seen a bunch of others. I agree that weapons are a very real threat in the street, but I’ve seen quite a few fights between unarmed opponents (and yes, even some one on one).
You also have to take into consideration legal ramifications. If your assailant is armed, there are multiple attackers, or your life/the life of a loved one is at stake, then yeah if you’re armed by all means show no mercy.
But, if we’re just talking about some jerk off with a chip on their shoulder picking a fight with you, you don’t want to just pull out a weapon and use it on them. That’ll make you look like the aggressor to anyone watching (and there are often bystanders).
As far as disarming a knife or firearm, that’s a whole different thread. You have to take into consideration range; whether they have the weapon already drawn, or they have yet to access it; whether they are using the weapon as a weapon, or the weapon as a threat; if it’s a firearm have they trained extensively with it; are you alone or do you need to protect someone else; can you flee or must you stand and fight; etc…etc…etc…
That’s an overly simplistic view of a street fight. I agree that most assailants will look for easy targets (who they perceive to have an advantage over) or use some form of intimidation (words, weapons, multiple attackers, etc…) to try to stack the deck in their favor. But I’ve seen quite a few real fights between two people that didn’t involve weapons.
Both are realities. Though I agree that one should train for a worst case scenario first and foremost.
[quote]
Also, “the street” is loaded with broken glass and the other guys friends, so I wouldn’t put all my chips on the table thinking that my stance or my strikes will keep me on my nikes.
-chris[/quote]
Definitely agree with that. Heck just the fact that you are on a surface like pavement changes the game big time. A takedown that would maybe knock the wind out of you on a mat could potentially kill you on pavement. A lot of matted ground tactics become pretty much useless on pavement as well.
To Sifu: I’ll share an anecdote that your comments reminded me of.
In college, a guy in my dorm found out I was into grappling sports. He proceeded to tell me (without my asking of course) how it’s good that I enjoyed it but on “the street” it would get me killed… and how his 7 years of Kung Fu was more sigh combat effective. Long story short,he eventually asked if I’d like to spar sometime and I jumped at the opportunity. After messing with him a bit, I shot in for a double and took him airborne. I I was going to drop him gently but he started elbowing me in the spine, so I got pissed off and slammed him on the grass. He got a dislocated shoulder and I had to be reminded of how much of a douche I was every time he walked by me in his sling.
So I will tell you, Sifu, to keep training hard in whatever it is you do and I pray you don’t piss off some douche that “wasted” a good chunk off his life grappling w/ other men.
[quote]chitown34 wrote:
To Sifu: I’ll share an anecdote that your comments reminded me of.
In college, a guy in my dorm found out I was into grappling sports. He proceeded to tell me (without my asking of course) how it’s good that I enjoyed it but on “the street” it would get me killed… and how his 7 years of Kung Fu was more sigh combat effective. Long story short,he eventually asked if I’d like to spar sometime and I jumped at the opportunity. After messing with him a bit, I shot in for a double and took him airborne. I I was going to drop him gently but he started elbowing me in the spine, so I got pissed off and slammed him on the grass. He got a dislocated shoulder and I had to be reminded of how much of a douche I was every time he walked by me in his sling.
So I will tell you, Sifu, to keep training hard in whatever it is you do and I pray you don’t piss off some douche that “wasted” a good chunk off his life grappling w/ other men.[/quote]
You have grabbed the correct and smashed it into the ground.
-chris
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Avocado wrote:
The counter to anything in the street is to pull your centerline shank and stick him till he decides to fuck off. I’m not too sure how many “street fights” any of you all have been in but they rarely happen with two unarmed guys going at it with their respective kung fu battle skills. Criminals aren’t looking for a fight they are looking for easy cash or sex. check the statistics within the entire US, street altercations with equal armament happen never. So if you are countering a takedown on the street that means you have managed to disarm him of the knife or pistol that he has more than 90% of the time and obviously are easily able to handle him.
A few. And I’ve seen a bunch of others. I agree that weapons are a very real threat in the street, but I’ve seen quite a few fights between unarmed opponents (and yes, even some one on one).
You also have to take into consideration legal ramifications. If your assailant is armed, there are multiple attackers, or your life/the life of a loved one is at stake, then yeah if you’re armed by all means show no mercy.
But, if we’re just talking about some jerk off with a chip on their shoulder picking a fight with you, you don’t want to just pull out a weapon and use it on them. That’ll make you look like the aggressor to anyone watching (and there are often bystanders).
As far as disarming a knife or firearm, that’s a whole different thread. You have to take into consideration range; whether they have the weapon already drawn, or they have yet to access it; whether they are using the weapon as a weapon, or the weapon as a threat; if it’s a firearm have they trained extensively with it; are you alone or do you need to protect someone else; can you flee or must you stand and fight; etc…etc…etc…
What I’m saying is that “street fights” are not fights. they are unequal force encounters. so if you find yourself in a duke-it-out situation on the street, chances are you are being filmed in Hong Kong.
That’s an overly simplistic view of a street fight. I agree that most assailants will look for easy targets (who they perceive to have an advantage over) or use some form of intimidation (words, weapons, multiple attackers, etc…) to try to stack the deck in their favor. But I’ve seen quite a few real fights between two people that didn’t involve weapons.
Both are realities. Though I agree that one should train for a worst case scenario first and foremost.
Also, “the street” is loaded with broken glass and the other guys friends, so I wouldn’t put all my chips on the table thinking that my stance or my strikes will keep me on my nikes.
-chris
Definitely agree with that. Heck just the fact that you are on a surface like pavement changes the game big time. A takedown that would maybe knock the wind out of you on a mat could potentially kill you on pavement. A lot of matted ground tactics become pretty much useless on pavement as well.[/quote]
Yeah I realize that 1-o-1 “fights” happen in the “street” and that they are not always robberies and kidnappings. The thing is that according to law enforcement statistics these altercations are the exception and not the rule.
Also, because of the idea that this forum (specifically this thread) seems to be populated by training martial artists I am giving everyone here the benefit of teh doubt that they have enough sense and respect to not engage in something like the “street fights” above. I assume (clearly naively) that most “real” martial artists would only engage in fights when necessary (ie. life threat).
So with that in mind the only example of “street fights” that respectable martial artists should be discussing is/are the unfair ones.
My simplistic view is based on the idea that if i get in an altercation outside of a controlled environment then I have to be thinking about the worst case scenario. I don’t want the last thing I think about before getting sucker punched from behind to be “good thing this guy doesn’t have buddies.” Gotta keep your O.O.D.A. loop ready to be broken.
The bottom line is: to think that any one technique, grappling striking or otherwise, is any better or worse than any other one because of the environment it is trained in or the people doing it is ignorant. If there were a “best” or even “better” technique, everyone would use it. As it stands Everyone typically employs every technique available to some degree. Take anyone whos income is generated by combat and you will likely notice that they are always keen to learn as much of their game as possible, whenever possible.
-chris
[quote]Avocado wrote:
Yeah I realize that 1-o-1 “fights” happen in the “street” and that they are not always robberies and kidnappings. The thing is that according to law enforcement statistics these altercations are the exception and not the rule.
[/quote]
Well, most fights (and not robberies, kidnappings, etc…) probably don’t need police intervention, hence the lack of them statistically.
I agree. And ideally people would be completely avoiding venues where fights are more likely to occur, they would always be dealing with rational individuals and they would always be able to talk their way out of potential fights. But that’s just not always the case.
Heck, you don’t even have to necessarily go to places where fights are likely to happen. Fights can occur anywhere. You also are not always going to be faced with a rational person who you can rationalize to why you shouldn’t fight. Sometimes people will make up their minds that they are going to fight you, and that’s just what’s going to happen. Of course alcohol will increase the likelihood of this.
Once again I agree. If you are prepared for the worst case scenario, then anything less will be easier to deal with. I’m just saying not to completely overlook the need to prepare for lesser case scenarios.
[quote]
The bottom line is: to think that any one technique, grappling striking or otherwise, is any better or worse than any other one because of the environment it is trained in or the people doing it is ignorant. If there were a “best” or even “better” technique, everyone would use it. As it stands Everyone typically employs every technique available to some degree. Take anyone whos income is generated by combat and you will likely notice that they are always keen to learn as much of their game as possible, whenever possible.
-chris[/quote]
Everything is situationally relevant or irrelevant. Results are really the bottom line. But, not all techniques are equal in all situations/environments. So actually I agree and disagree with you.
As far people who’s income is generated by combat, first that will cover a fairly diverse spectrum of people; everything from boxers to military personel. Boxers likely aren’t going to be interested in learning weapons defenses or verbal de-escalation skills. Military personel on the other hand probably aren’t going to want to spend much time learning how to perform flying arm bars. That doesn’t mean that both might not benefit from learning those things, just that those things are not very relevant to those individuals’ specific needs.
I do agree that you will find individuals who truly do want to learn as much as possible in all forms of combat though.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Avocado wrote:
Yeah I realize that 1-o-1 “fights” happen in the “street” and that they are not always robberies and kidnappings. The thing is that according to law enforcement statistics these altercations are the exception and not the rule.
Well, most fights (and not robberies, kidnappings, etc…) probably don’t need police intervention, hence the lack of them statistically. [/quote]
they still get reported by security staff for stats purposes but you’re quite right.
That’s why i said “learn as much of THEIR game as possible.” what i mean is that within a relevant spectrum real athletes will crave more and more information and virtuosity in their style. whereas most armchair warriors or hobbyist martial artists like to say that these few movements they have are the ones that are the “best” and that they don’t need to learn those phony, play-around, be-a-good-sport takedown or whatever. Your mind tends to open up more as your pocket book becomes reliant on it.
As far as military goes you would be surprised (maybe) to see the difference in training between those who pursue and get picked for tactical operation with military as career versus those who are in for their 4 years and out. the guys who want to do and learn everything are the ones making JTF2 or SAS. Learning irrelevant martial arts might not help in completeing missions in an obvious way but it is clearly a tool to create a warrior mind and good tactical thinking patterns. Those are the guys that they want to spend money training.
-chris
To the new guys on the forum: Sifu is the resident TMA (traditional martial arts) guy. He talks about throat strikes. He once told the board about some “master” that could break your ribs by applying so much press if you were in his guard.
He said in another post that head gear doesn’t help you absorb head shots.
Keep that in mind when discussing these issues with him.
[quote]chitown34 wrote:
To Sifu: I’ll share an anecdote that your comments reminded me of.
In college, a guy in my dorm found out I was into grappling sports. He proceeded to tell me (without my asking of course) how it’s good that I enjoyed it but on “the street” it would get me killed… and how his 7 years of Kung Fu was more sigh combat effective. Long story short,he eventually asked if I’d like to spar sometime and I jumped at the opportunity. After messing with him a bit, I shot in for a double and took him airborne. I I was going to drop him gently but he started elbowing me in the spine, so I got pissed off and slammed him on the grass. He got a dislocated shoulder and I had to be reminded of how much of a douche I was every time he walked by me in his sling.
So I will tell you, Sifu, to keep training hard in whatever it is you do and I pray you don’t piss off some douche that “wasted” a good chunk off his life grappling w/ other men.[/quote]
Got this impression also…Sifu seems informed for the most part but not in this area of combat given his responses.
OMC
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
To the new guys on the forum: Sifu is the resident TMA (traditional martial arts) guy. He talks about throat strikes. He once told the board about some “master” that could break your ribs by applying so much press if you were in his guard.
He said in another post that head gear doesn’t help you absorb head shots.
Keep that in mind when discussing these issues with him.[/quote]
C’mon, most of these points aren’t clearly right or wrong. It’s good to have someone speaking from the perspective of a traditional guy here on this board, especially if he takes his time to write extensive, well-thought posts.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
To the new guys on the forum: Sifu is the resident TMA (traditional martial arts) guy. He talks about throat strikes. He once told the board about some “master” that could break your ribs by applying so much press if you were in his guard.
He said in another post that head gear doesn’t help you absorb head shots.
Keep that in mind when discussing these issues with him.[/quote]
Thanks for the DL. I secretly knew that before posting in this thread. For some random unknown reason I try to give people as much credit as possible. I am often let down. Even so I think anyone has a right to make a case without me preconceiving their attitudes.
It’s not like I expected to change his mind. Just keeping my debate sharp (like a spoon).
Moral of the story: Trying to be fair and cordial is the road to depression.
You didn’t know that the master can break your ribs with his “scissor lock?” You better keep your throat guard on with that kind of ignorance CaliLaw. [/sarcasm]
-chris
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You are missing a real simple premise Sento. To do the takedown you have to get really close to your opponent with your head unguarded. The head is unguarded because you need your guarding hands to grab the legs for the takedown. And you are leading in with your head.
I’m not missing that premise. But, it’s actually the fact that you are so close to your opponent that somewhat negates the fact that your head is unguarded. In boxing the safest place for your head to be (other than completely out of range of your opponent’s punches obviously) is right on his belt line. Now yes, it’s true that boxers can’t strike the spine and can’t knee, so that’s not the case during a MMA or street fight.
But the principle that one of the safest places for the head to be (in a striking context) is actually resting on the body still holds true. A good wrestler/grappler will have their head actually against your body (in the case of a single it will be in a similar place to the above boxing example), only his spine is upright (hips below his head), which makes it much more difficult to attack the spine effectively.
And again, I agree that there is a split second of time between when he/she initiates the takedown and where they are in the above position where they are open to a counter strike. The question is though, could you really pull that off in real time against a skilled takedown artist, who sets up the takedown correctly. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Just like with a jab, maybe you could slip it and come over the top with a right hook, cuff it and return fire with your own jab, or some other counter, but maybe you couldn’t. No technique is fool proof, and takedowns can be just as effective and hard to deal with as punches if done correctly. [/quote]
Anything against a person who is skilled can be tricky. Most of the counters I can think of don’t require a high level of skill to be effective.
There are different ways to atack the spine. One of the most effective is to put one hand on the back of the neck and the other on the chin and twist the head around backwards breaking the neck. When you are down on your knees with your arms wrapped around a leg you are open to that and you can even do it on the ground.
You can grab the windpipe. You can attack the carotids. It isn’t difficult to shove a thumb in an eye. If you drop a hammer fist on the collar bone it wouldn’t be hard to break it. You can drop an elbow onto the collar bone. You can grab the collar bone. I have seen guys pass out from a collar bone grab. A broken collar bone is dangerous because it can tear the Jugular vein.
Look at all the guys who end up in Guillotine chokes trying takedowns. The choke is being nice. In Ju Jitsu they have a move where once you get a guy in the Guillotine you rotate your body to break the neck.
[quote]
I am sure that someone who is good at it can be tricky to deal with. Just like someone who is good at countering it can be dangerous. ie Koschek v Sanchez.
Agreed.
In a street fight a good counter would be an eye gouge or attack the spine. If a person is in side stance so their groin is protected it is going to be a lot harder to get a double leg takedown.
Those are potential counters. But, first you must stop the takedown in order to buy yourself enough time to attack the eyes or the spine. Also, if the takedown artist knows what they’re doing, attacking the eyes can be very difficult, as well as attacking the spine. If you know how to properly sprawl and get the person outstretched, then yeah the spine is fairly easy to attack (via strike, cross face, quarter nelson, etc…). But you need to stop the takedown first.
Side stance would make it somewhat harder to get a double, but the single would be easier. Also, if the attacker can reach both their arms around your leg, they could easily attack the groin from that range. You also basically nullify your rear arm and leg from a striking perspective from a side stance, and have very little side to side balance. The side stance is great for striking with the lead arm and leg, but not so great for fighting a grappler or MMA/street fight scenarios. [/quote]
If you are fully turned to the side. I’m talking about a basic on guard stance like they use in JKD or in Isshinryu we call offset Seisan where the groin is guarded but the rear hand and leg can still be used becuase you are not turned completely to the side.
I don’t see why you need to buy time, I would just go with what’s happening without having to think about it. [quote]
It’s alright for MMA and it’s something to have in your repetoire so you are versatile on the street. But there are ways it could go terribly wrong.
I don’t disagree with you there. It could go very wrong in the street, even if you were successful, you have now greatly limited your mobility so if other attackers come into the picture you are now at a disadvantage. Purposely taking the fight to the ground is unadvisable in most cases, but there are scenarios where it would be an important skill to have. And just because it might not be the most practical skill doesn’t make it any less dangerous or any less of a threat if someone else does it to you.[/quote]
I don’t mean to totally diss it. I’m just trying to give a little balance. It’s a really popular move in MMA but there are ways to deal with it. They are not leagal for sports but they will work.
[quote]Avocado wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Just remember those guys are being good sports. Because there are some real vulnerabilities involved in those takedowns.
Sure there are, there are vulnerabilities in just about every single conceivable take-down, punch, kick or unarmed attack known to man. That doesn’t mean that the take-downs aren’t still very effective, or that just because you know the vulnerabilities that you would be able to exploit them against that high level of a grappler.
There are vulnerabilities in a western jab, but that doesn’t make it any less effective of a technique. Nor does it mean that you could exploit those vulnerabilities against the likes of Ali, Roy Jones, or Sugar Ray Leonard.
Sure there are vulnerabilities in all techniques but they are not all equal. The vulnerability of a jab does not equal the vulnerability of a takedown.
With a take down you are dropping to your knees with your arms outreached and your head just sitting there like a giant zit begging to be popped. The head and neck are not something that is wise to leave vulnerable. It is also not advisable to drop to your knees with your legs spread apart pulling your opponents leg towards you either…
I am sure that if someone is good at it they can catch you slipping. Just like if someone has some counters worked out and they are good at them, you could end up in a world of hurt. ie on TUF Josh Koschek tried to takedown Diego Sanchez who timed him coming and planted a knee in the middle of his forehead that left his entire forehead black and blue. Koschek is really lucky he didn’t get serious brain damage or killed from that.
There are a few other things you could do to counter a takedown that would not be good for the other guy. That head and neck region is a real important vital zone.
I think you have a distorted view of what a “take down” is. Not that it’s you fault given the common appearance in MA media. The proper execution of a low shot does not necessarily involve going to your knees with your head perched and ready to be blasted. You needn’t expose your head to take someone down. A chest-to-chest clinch into a body throw keeps your head tucked away from any major danger as do most greco style upper body throws. And the extent to which getting to the clinch might force you to be unguarded would be the same as any striker getting to a thai clinch. [/quote]
Actually I know a variety of takedowns. Not just the ones in Wol’s video. Some of them involve foot work, balance breaks, grapples, strikes used in combination.
In a chest to chest clinch you had better hope the other guy doesn’t think he’s a vampire and rip your Carotid artery or Jugular vein out with his teeth. [quote]
So not every “take down” is the random charge of the mighty scrub. Many of them are as lightning quick as a jab but with more situation altering power than any jab.
Also, I would say that the statistics stand in favor of strikes to the head area not being effective as a counter to most take downs. I’ve seen countless take downs, even poor ones, succeed despite hard looking hits to the noodle. Without the legs to generate power in the strike they tend to be not as hard as needed. In contrast I have seen only a handful of knees, punches or even elbows stymie the takedown, even bad ones. [/quote]
You don’t need leg power to do a lot of the counters.
[quote]
Also using strikes as the riposte to the take down is an all-in bet. if it fails you are ass down face up looking like a surprised prom date. whereas if your riposte to the take down is the head-and-whizzer or some other variety of sprawl then you have a bit better chance of ending up back in neutral or in the advantage.
that being said, it’s not that strikes are ineffective, far from it, but their use in countering the takedown, without the assistance or setup of proper wrestling counters, is not necessarily sound.
It just seems statistically that the take down succeeds against strikes to the head without suffering much disadvantage.
-chris[/quote]
You have a good point that a lot of guys get caught by take downs and don’t effectively counter. One of the main reasons is a lot of the fighters in MMA don’t stay in movement. They just stand there and wait for the other guy to unload with something. Once you stop moving you give the other guy the chance to focus and set you up.