Defence when someone "shoots" in

[gnugear]

I worked out briefly with a kick boxer (that also does some grappling) and had a discussion about techniques.

He said that I was really binding up his hands(which he didn't like). He said he would probably abandon that approach and immediately try to shoot in once he had the correct distance.

I noticed that if he did it low enough and quickly enough ... there wasn't much I could do about it. It was very much related to timing and leverage. If I missed reacting by a split second, he was able to get me in a compromising position.

Sooo ... without resorting to grappling techniques, how does one apply Wing Chun principles to fend off the "shooting" technique.

BTW, he said that he's seen guys get knocked out with hook punches while trying to shoot ... but that doesn't seem very wing chun-like.

[DelicateSound]

You're gonna get a lot of differing opinion here dude, and if Merryprankster sees a "just hit his neck" reply or a "just sprawl" one, it's flame-time. :D

You know how to sprawl? It IS the basic defense to a double-leg shoot, but a top-notch grappler will anticipate it and compensate. There are also strikes that can MAYBE take a guy down, but it's hit and miss and 90% of the time he'll take you to the ground irrelevant.

As a former grappler my tactic would be to sprawl and go for a decent hold, avoiding [hopefully] a decent leg grab.

Maybe a sacrifice throw.


It's a tricky one. If you're a 100% WC man, you need to speak to Andrew Nerlich, he probably knows most as he crosstrains in BJJ [I think*]

As a WC guy you need to be able to make your art work against this, keeping in range etc, protecting your centre. Your art CAN work against any attack, but a good plan B would be to get some grapple experience.

Loads of grapplers will know MUCH more than me, so I'll leave it to them. :)


Hope this has been some use. :confused: :p




*Sorry if this is Complete BS mate. :D

[Shadowboxer]

I can think of 2 options.
1. Kwai sut with kwai jarn to the neck. It's a strike and a control. He will have to be incredibly strong to resist all of your weight and torque with his neck as he is shooting forward and you are spiraling his energy into the ground.Your stance has to be solid though.
2. The forward gum sao's in SNT can be used with a toy ma. Aim for the neck and shoulder crease. Your other hand can be used for a palm energy strike to compress the spine. Your stance has to be solid though. And be careful with your partners.

[gnugear]

Yeah, I'm trying to be a 100% wing chun man.

I actually have to be ... I had some back surgery so there's no way I'm going to train in grappling.

Lots of muscle just won't work for me!

[anerlich]

It's a tricky one. If you're a 100% WC man, you need to speak to Andrew Nerlich, he probably knows most as he crosstrains in BJJ [I think*]

Thanks for the reference, but I'm not a 100% WC man. As you correctly pointed out, I crosstrain, as does my Sifu and a fair proportion of students at his academy.

Some points:

1. The "shoot" is not the only tool a grappler can use to bridge the gap. As well as a number of different types of shoots, there are all sorts of takedowns from tie-ups and clinches, e.g. bearhug and step over to mount, arm drags and duckunders to get the back, fireman's carry, as well as the entire encyclopaedia of judo-type throws. If you think that by being able to counter a shoot you can effectively nullify a grappler's arsenal, you are dead wrong.

2. There's a difference between countering a single techinque employed from someone well out of range, and the same technique thrown as part of a combination or after various setups. Same as most people with a little experience can counter a single big rear leg roundhouse kick to the head. But few intelligent fighters go for such big movements without preliminary setups. I've seen a BJJ BB with an extensive wrestling background who can jab and hit a highly effective double leg shoot as fast as most people can throw a jab/cross, or three chain punches. Same as that kickboxer can nail you with that head kick if he sets it up with punches of motorsets you to anticipate a thigh kick instead.

3. There is more than one variety of shoot. Most people seem to like low singles or doubles, but there are other varieties as well. Grapplers learn to swtich to other options if the first doesn't work.

4. Knees and low hooks can work, but they're no harder (or easier) for a grappler to deal with than they are for a WC person to handle. A decent grappler will know how to position himself once he has his hands on you so that your opportunities to hit, knee, butt, or bite are limited. A lot of WC people seem to think you can slam a descending elbow into the guys neck or spine as he shoots in, but realistically the angles are all wrong to get any power without getting taken down, and the pics in MA mags which show such defenses are all demo'd on hapless students of the featured Sifu who have obviously never been shown what an effective takedown looks like.

5. The classic WC defense is to step offline and strike the guy from the side as he goes past. In my experience, very few people have the ability to step fast or wide enough to avoid getting their legs tangled. The sprawl is designed to get your feet and legs as far away from those arms as quickly as possible. I've found that a step to the side of the "rush" with a stiff arm followed by an offline sprawl, and then moving to side/back control works reasonably well for me. But so does the standard sprawl.

6. Grapplers have FAR better defenses against grappling takedowns than WC purists ever will, because they train against them all the time. All the theorising in the world will not stack up against swalling your pride and doing some solid training with people who know how to takedown effectively, when it comes to finding out what will and will not work.

I still think, against a skilled and determined grappler, that all but the supernaturally skilled will end up on the floor at least two or three times out of ten.

Merryprankster is a far more experienced jiu jitsu player than I, and you should listen to any advice he might want to give.

[old jong]

There are no perfect defenses against any attacks as there are no perfect attacks against any defenses. A good Wing Chuner or her!... ;) should be agressive and mean enough to put anyone on the defensive and do his best to end the fight as fast as possible.A reacting only Wing Chuner would be limited to defending himself only and would never have the possibility to dictate ''his'' fight to the opponent.
It is good to know about the sprawll,giullotine,and other responses to takedowns but remember that even wrestlers are taken down all the times.

[gnugear]

I still think, against a skilled and determined grappler, that all but the supernaturally skilled will end up on the floor at least two or three times out of ten.

That's what I'm afraid of.

We were talking very basic theory, but it seemed as if I could handle him at a distance.

It was the really quick drop (around the shin area) that threw me for a loop.

Thanks for the responses though ... interesting stuff to consider.

[OdderMensch]

oh well i'll interject in the meantime. :)


anerlich

. If you think that by being able to counter a shoot you can effectively nullify a grappler's arsenal, you are dead wrong.

nuts, there goes that plan. :D

as a non-grappler I tend to inturpret "shoot" as any atempt to take down and "grapple" with an opponent. An actual atempt to take them down, not just "falling" into it.


There's a difference between countering a single techinque employed from someone well out of range, and the same technique thrown as part of a combination or after various setups.

correct, Thats "why Chi Sau" if Chocolate doggie is listning. As my Sifu says " if they are this close and you have not hit them yet something is terribly wrong.


. Grapplers learn to swtich to other options if the first doesn't work.

an excellent reason not to give them that third or fourth attempt.


. A lot of WC people seem to think you can slam a descending elbow into the guys neck or spine as he shoots in, but realistically the angles are all wrong to get any power without getting taken down, and the pics in MA mags which show such defenses are all demo'd on hapless students of the featured Sifu who have obviously never been shown what an effective takedown looks like.

As to the first part, I don't see "slaming" anything into the spine as likely myself. But if the "shoot" has occoured durring an exchange (ie the jab - shoot) My chi sau skills should (read I've practiced against this type of attack before) allow me to smoothly follow his head in, while kwai sut motion and/or the toy ma stepping should (read i've practiced and can punch kwai sut about as fast as I can throw three punchs) keep my legs out of the way and maintain th proper angle and distance.

as to the second i've seen some lousy "shoots" in MA mags and books, it can look pretty pathetic. My favorite is where the guy just bends over at the waist and trys to grab your knees from about four foot away.


I still think, against a skilled and determined grappler, that all but the supernaturally skilled will end up on the floor at least two or three times out of ten.

so we get to pound hem now 7-8 out of tem times now, not bad odds. ;)

I agree with old jong If i'm caught napping I lose 9 times out of ten, If i'm in and determined myself I've got a good chance.

[TaoBoy]

Originally posted by gnugear
Yeah, I'm trying to be a 100% wing chun man.

I actually have to be ... I had some back surgery so there's no way I'm going to train in grappling.

Lots of muscle just won't work for me!

Bad luck about your back, dude.

But don't limit your stand-up approach purely to WC techniques. It makes take something outta the box to stop the shoot if he catches you semi-unaware.

I have been informed that stepping back and throwing an uppercut is one way to strike the shooter - but dunno if this would work for the double leg shoot. Hmmm? Anyway, I'm new to grappling so cut me some slack. :p

[teazer]

From my limited experience, sprawl is a wonderful thing! & probably the quickest counter to learn. Other variations that get any forward leg out of the way will help.
With that said, at least some WC folk spend a considerable amount of time developing good structure/root etc. If that's part of your training then it might give you a fraction of a second.
The main deal though is not doing things that make the person feel you're open to a shoot. If your elbow is up in the air, you have a leg forward, you're immobile etc I'd guess you'd look more like a tasty snack to a shooter!
Any grapplers care to say what other signals they look for in an opponent that makes them comfortable doing it ?

[red5angel]

Anerlich - "I still think, against a skilled and determined grappler, that all but the supernaturally skilled will end up on the floor at least two or three times out of ten."

I think this is a key point as well, in any fight, the chances of something happening or going wrong are pretty high, regardless of your training and background. I hate to agree with you again anerlich ;) I am trying not to make a habit of it but this appears to be the second time in a month!
The other thing I would like to interject here is that there is a good chance that most of your opponents wont be excelent grapplers, they may not be grapplers at all, or strikers for that matter. While arguments mostly hinge on what good graplers and good strikers would do, I think it would also be realistic to think about a good defense against mediocre or bad grapplers as well. Someone who might try to take you down in an off the cuff sort of way. For instance a lot of the fights I have seen go to the ground, usually go there because someone puts an arm around the others neck and pulls them down, or the opponents trip over each other and fall.
I think the advice to train with a good grappler is good, because if you know what a good grappler can do it will help you against a bad grappler.

Anerlich, in your training when you guys grapple, are you working the wingchun or are you training your response to be a grapplers response. Serious question, no ulterior motives, not lookng to get into a flame battle, Just curious how you guys are approaching that.

Here is my last point, is the sprawl a good wingchun strategy? You loose your connection to the ground, and your structure as well so is this really the best option for these types of situations? The sprawl if I understand it correctly also puts you on the ground correct? Wouldnt it be best to find an answer that didnt force you to the ground?

[yenhoi]

quote anerlich:

...........because they train against them all the time. All the theorising in the world will not stack up against swalling your pride and doing some solid training with people who know how to takedown effectively, when it comes to finding out what will and will not work.


-

train yourself for all 'ranges' of 'fighting.'

[yenhoi]

I dont think you will find the sprawl in any of the WC forms, but usually, done correctly, your not compromising your center, and if you have a solid stance, probably not your root either. Its like a fook sau with your whole body.

[teazer]

and I don't believe it's a requirement to end up on the ground yourself.

[red5angel]

Yenhoi, can you describe the sprawl and tell me how it doesnt compromise your center?

[reneritchie]

gnugear,

Imagine he'd been a wrestler/judoka/bjj guy with only a little kickboxing, eh? Here are the problems as I see them:

1) It is rare to encounter someone with significant MA skill, but highschool wrestling and especially football programs are very well funded (whereas highschool boxing, kickboxing, not to mention WCK, are not). This gives a higher percentage chance of encountering someone with knowledge of takedowns/tackles

2) While, like any endeavor, excellence comes over time, the basics of most takedowns (single, double, heel pick, fireman's, etc.) are relatively simple to learn and gain rudimentary proficiency in (gravity helps them by encouraging falling, being bipedal helps them in always leaving an angle without base).

3) People with grappling backgrounds (even highschool wrestling/football) typically were pushed very hard, worked their asses off, and practiced near constantly with *resisting* opponents.

So, in order to defend takedowns, throws, sweeps, etc. using *pure* WCK, you will have to be *more* skilled than your opponent (you striking them as they shoot, and their falling on top of you cannot be considered a true "draw" ;). This can, of course, be the case. My sigung had several fights with good (provincial champion) grapplers (Shuai Jiao, but also Greco, Olympic, etc.) and each time succeeded knocking the grappler down/out. My sigung, to put it mildly however, trained near constantly, has what seems like preternatural timing, and is *very* fast.

So, again from a *pure* WCK point of view, when an opponent shoots, pick a side, join with them (take their balance and momentum) cross them (get one of their arms misaligned and across their body), close like a mofo, and KTFO of your opponent. This will most likely be possible if you've trained the heck out of it, and are experienced in dealing with it (no good to panic and get turfed). Luckily, if the grappler in question doesn't cross train, they may not be used to getting hit, and would be as out of their element as you would be if they spiked you into the floor. (Your friend doing kickboxing would not have the problem).

If you're willing to squint and turn your head a little, and fudge the pure 100% WCK thing, you can get basic understanding of the sprawl and cross face in a *very* short time. If it makes you feel better, consider the sprawl part of the end of Biu Jee, and the cross-face part of the earlier section in Biu Jee. Then, when the opponent shoots for a double or single, take a slight angle, assume that extreme YJKYM (shoot both your legs as far back as possible and press your hips into the opponent's CoG), place your arm across their face, then go back to the KTFO part. To expand this slightly, if your opponent is heel picking you (which sounds like what your friend might have been doing?) just quickly reposition your foot (pretend its the very beginning of a Chum Kiu kick) when they get near (don't jump the gun, though, or they might shoot in for the other leg). If you look at a good wrestler, watch how hard it is for people to even touch their legs.

BTW- Super respect to you for having the b@lls to try it out and work at it. IMHO to many people are just as happy to be told that one day a magic little pill will somehow make them invincible.

Anyway, this is my long rambling way of saying Anerlich is correct.

Rgds,

RR

[yenhoi]

The sprawl, is kinda like, instead of letting him GET your legs, your allowing his energy (and he is trying to "GET" your legs) PUSH your legs back, or to the side or whatever, letting your root move from your legs to your hips, so your hips are ontop of him, where-ever they end up, they must be above him. Then depending on the outcome of this manuver, you re-establish your root either through your legs that are still in contact with the ground, or through your hips, in contact with your opponent.

The sprawl is just one technique, you dont necessarily respond to a take down or shoot with a sprawl, you sprawl DURING the opponents action, as opposed to flailing your arms and screaming DURING the opponents action. After the 'action' you still must recover, which should include an attack(attacks) of some sort of your own.

Your structure is still intact during the sprawl, and should be after if you are successful. If your real good or real lucky, or both, possibly your upper body is not disturbed at all.

For red5:

Basically, you are sucking all the chi from your legs, into your dan tien, and then expressing it through your hips into your opponent, or possibly re-energizing your legs. Depending on 'the ten-thousand variables' you should have a base, and you should be 'grounded' or rooted, and you should be attacking or manuvering for a better position, because most likely, if someone wants to take the fight to the floor, they will.

Of course, Im not an authority on chi, but thats not a bad way to visualize whats happening with your legs, hips, and upper body.

[Merryprankster]

I don't have access to an unclassified terminal anymore on a regular basis, sorry :D

For the guy that suggested "your root has to be strong..."

There is NO ROOT strong enough to just redirect a shot, unless the weight mismatch is such that the shooter can't just pick you up off the ground. You can't stand there and expect to "spiral their energy into the ground," as it was so quaintly put. Secondly, while you're spiraling, I don't have to be stronger. I just have to turn the corner, or stand back up and shuck your arm by, and you have provided me a wonderful opportunity to do this by remaining fairly stationary. This redirection strategy might work on a tackle, but that's a different category of attack, and bears as much relationship to a shot as a roundhouse swipe to the head bears to a WC punch down the centerline (ie, none at all).

If you attempt to just stand there and redirect, you will get taken down by anybody who knows what they are doing, and probably even by those who don't.

If you are looking to sprawl, go find somebody who knows how to do it and learn. Practice it, and you'll stay on your feet more often against leg attacks. I recommend the buck back version where you engage the opponent but stay standing. This takes time to learn to do properly, however, because you have to ride the guy's momentum back and use that to stay on your feet. It will be valuable to learn though, because you can bang away while they still have their heads down and are out of position to counter. Buckback, crossface, force them to stand, collar tie with the left hand, followed by a right hook/uppercut does wonders....

Red5Angel--A sprawl does not neccessitate going to the ground with them. It does not compromise your center because what's important is the relationship between your center and the opponents. Who's worse off, is the question that needs asking. If you sprawl on your opponent, maintain the top position, and take an angle appropriate for keeping your feet and striking, while he's overextended and stretched out, you've successfully preserved your center at the expense of his. It's not an absolute thing, it's a relative thing. Unfortunately, people talk about things like root and center as if they were static and absolute, rather than relative, so they get this idea about the way things are "supposed to be," forgetting that a fight is a relationship between two individuals.

Yen's got it mostly right, except that the HIPS on your opponent is bad. You'll get turned and dropped. Better to have your chest on your opponents shoulder blade/neck area.

[red5angel]

"If you attempt to just stand there and redirect, you will get taken down by anybody who knows what they are doing, and probably even by those who don't."

Can you give an example or two of what you mean here MP? Also, I assume that a shoot is not just a dive for the legs right? Can you describe basically what is going on when a person shoots?

[yenhoi]

I guess it is the chest / belly area, my bad :cool:

Anyways, lately in my sparring, I have been allowing myself to be taken down (not really allowing, just not really resisting....), concentrating on my position during/after takedown......... different thread entirely.

A person shooting is attempting to get you from standing, to being on the ground, this means destroying your structure, the easiest way usually being the legs. It is an advantage after a takedown if I happen to have control of one or more of your limbs, and to have a dominant ground position.

[red5angel]

Do you think its possible yenhoi to resist a shoot with a deep set stance?

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by yenhoi

Basically, you are sucking all the chi from your legs, into your dan tien, and then expressing it through your hips into your opponent, or possibly re-energizing your legs. Depending on 'the ten-thousand variables' you should have a base, and you should be 'grounded' or rooted, and you should be attacking or manuvering for a better position, because most likely, if someone wants to take the fight to the floor, they will.

Of course, Im not an authority on chi, but thats not a bad way to visualize whats happening with your legs, hips, and upper body.

That is a silly argument. There is absolutely NO NEED to introduce ideas of 'chi' into defending a shoot attempt! It is about defensive techniques and MMA has taught us a lot about the best way for a striker to defend a shoot, or any takedown.

From a Judo perspective, I can say that most of the wing chun/tsun practicioners I have come into contact have a VERY weak takedown defence. It is simply an area that is not emphasised much and doesn't fit into traditional wing chun training. Resisting a takedown is about balance and mobility. You need very good footwork. Not fast, but well balanced foot placement. A sprawl is basically lowering your centre of gravity far lower than in a basic stance.

I can say that if you really want some ideas on takedown defences, watch some MMA tapes of standup guy defending a shoot. Knees are an effective weapon as the infamous guillotine choke. But lowering your centre of gravity as fast as possible is the key.

[yenhoi]

You should read my post more carefully, you would learn a thing or two about chi.

:o

I dont think your x number of years in judo qualifies you to speak as an authority on chi.

:o

I was speaking to red5.

:eek:

Red5:

Possibly, but generally just standing around gets you hurt in a fight. Dont expect the shooter to just bounce off you and fall to the ground. Generally, I think that would be a very poor tactic.

[red5angel]

"doesn't fit into traditional wing chun training."

How do you know? Maybe it just doesnt fit into modern wing chun training? That I think is the problem.

Yenhoi, I guess what I am picturing is this guy going in for the shoot and he sort of hits your legs, creating a pause in the action long enough for you to get in a couple of good strikes to the head or neck? Also, why isnt kicking someone shooting an option?

[Merryprankster]

red5angel,

You've asked some decent questions. I'll try to cover them later--probably tomorrow morning. I am SWAMPED for time and I will get to them as soon as I can.

Ultimate--think of chi as just a way to explain biomechanics, and you'll have less problems.

James

[red5angel]

MP - no problem, when you have the time.

[UltimateFighter]

Like I said, 'chi' doesn't even come into he equation. For takedowns, nothing beats Judo and wreslting. The emphasis in Ju-jitsu is on locks standing (in traditional) and on the ground (in BJJ).

But really, if you got some specific questions on takedowns and defences, post em up and I'll answer as best I can.

[yenhoi]

It is, so are punches, elbows, knees, shoulders, hips and butts.

The trick is actually connecting with enough power and accuracy to affect his attack (the shoot) and still be in a position to compete (fight) with him. "Thats easy, thats what Im training to do anyways..." you might say, but he is also training for people to be attacking him when he shoots. Not only that, but in kicking you are using one of your legs, so now you really are only standing on one leg and there are obviously disadvantages to that.

...creating a pause in the action long enough for you to get in a couple of good strikes to the head or neck? ........

probably not. But, there is no telling when and where, why, or how there will be pauses during a fight, 'specially if your in actual contact.

[red5angel]

Thanks for answering my questions yenhoi, I need to get together with my wrestling buddy this weekend and go over the shoot to see what the deal is.

[anerlich]

Good responses from Oddermensch, and Merryprankster


Originally posted by red5angel
I think it would also be realistic to think about a good defense against mediocre or bad grapplers as well.


Assuming your opp is going to be clueless is generally a bad idea. If it happens it's a bonus, but these days info is everywhere and a lot of people know some fighting skills. Better train for skilled opponents and think yourself lucky if you come up against someone without skill.


Anerlich, in your training when you guys grapple, are you working the wingchun or are you training your response to be a grapplers response. Serious question, no ulterior motives, not lookng to get into a flame battle, Just curious how you guys are approaching that.

This is a false dichotomy IMO. There is plenty of overlap in the principles of various arts that you can often say you are using either or both. When striking, you are using WC, after you clinch, there is a good deal of commonality, reading the opp's energy and responding to it, trying to attack his structure, etc.


Here is my last point, is the sprawl a good wingchun strategy?.

A question of political or philosophical correctness. The question that concerns me is "is the sprawl a good strategy?" Some Wing Chun guys might scorn it, but if they can't effectively avoid a takedown the joke would be on them.


You loose your connection to the ground, and your structure as well

Depends on your definition of "connection" and "structure", but basically I disagree. Connection and structure can be effectively attained and employed in orientations other than strictly vertical.


so is this really the best option for these types of situations?

It seems to be the one most easily learned and easily and effectively employed by the majority who have tried out the various options.


The sprawl if I understand it correctly also puts you on the ground correct?

As the Prankster said, only if you want it to.

[yuanfen]

Unless one is weightless in space or a similar environment
there has to be a ground connection. The real issue is whether
it is the best that it can be for you.

[Merryprankster]

A good question to ask might be--is getting taken down or staying on your feet more consistent with WC principles? I would suggest the latter :D

Red5Angel--here is an excellent demonstration/photos of a classic double leg with a lift and turn finish.

www.lesgutches.com

Click on Techniques.

Click on "Double Leg."

You'll note that he maintains good balance and posture throughout, and ends in a position that allows him to lift his opponent as if he were lifting a box. I would critique one thing, however--you'll notice his lead knee position in the third photo in the series. I prefer that knee should break the imaginary line drawn between his opponents toes. I find it rocks their weight back on their heels, or far forward on their toes better. Different strokes. *shrug* It obviously works for him.

Don't worry so much about the finish he uses--there are many ways to finish, obviously.

Now, change the "post on the shoulders" in the original photo, to "As your opponent tries to punch you, slip," and you get the picture.

Obviously, it's just a demonstration. But pay attention to how well balanced Les is. It's not so easy to knock somebody over or out who is shooting like this, and simple "redirection," is going to be futile, with the intensity and explosion of their forward drive. You have to stop their penetration of your center. That's the simple fact. How you choose to do it is up to you. If you want to try and develop the timing to knock somebody out while they come in, be my guest--but ask yourself a simple question--how many one shot knockouts are there REALLY, and do you think you can unload enough punches before they get to you and disrupt your balance? Remember--while you are fighting for your balance, you really don't have any power in your shots. They might hurt, but will they STOP the guy from getting to you? Are you willing to take that risk when you know that the other guy is unlikely to be OOC by a single blow?

Now, I can see all the people with zero grappling experience say--well, can't I just stagger my stance more and sink myself so that he can't get to my center? The answer is "Of course you can!" I've seen that as the answer to the shot repeatedly--read it, heard it, watched it demonstrated (albeit poorly, and not against a shot--a tackle). And you know what, you'd be absolutely right. He wouldn't be able to take you down with a double leg because he'd have to somehow reach your back leg through your knee and lead side and we know that won't happen unless he's beastly strong with ape long arms.

Of course, you have now just handed him your front leg, the shot changes to a sweep/swing single, and you're just as bad off as you were:

Again--go to Les Gutches site, Click on techniques, and click on "swing single," and it will give you a basic idea of what that would look like. Ignore the hand setup--it's not important here. That's my favorite single, by the way, but I use a different finish. Could you hit him in the face from the end picture? Sure. Will it hurt? Sure. Will you get taken down anyway? Unless you explain how you're going to knock out the guy or put him OOC as he's dropping you on your ass, I vote no. I'd also like to point out that once you get the single, you are CONSTANTLY moving the guy to make him hop around, pushing, pulling, jerking as you try to trip or lever him to his back. I tuck my head down to avoid getting punched, as it happens.

Hope this explains a bit. Let me know if there are more questions.

[red5angel]

Anerlich, agreed, never underestiomate anyone, ever. ALong with that however I think that it is also a good idea to look at what some responses might be from people who do not have a clue about fighting but just like to brawl.
Whle I also generally agree with your overlap, some arts overlap less then others. I also understand what you are saying about what is good strategy as compared to what is good wingchun strategy, but that is my concern, good wingchun strategy, as you know I believe tha wing chun has what it needs, you just have to look deeply to find it.

MP - Good website, I will have to go through and check out the rest of those techniques as well. As with all things I saw some openings an weaknesses that could be exploited if you knew what you were doing, and I think that is the key, knowing.
How viable do you think this is to the shoot - getting a hold on the guy shooting, whether its his neck, his ear, his shirt, whatever, while stepping back and driving his face to the ground? You mentioned he should have pretty good balance in the shoot. Also, isnt his face a little vulnerable to a knee?

[Merryprankster]

I'm glad you can see some weaknesses. I can't really. It's just about picture perfect, as a demonstration should be. I might have some personal preferences, but as far as sound technique goes it's on the money. No offense, but I really don't think you know what you're looking at. It'd be like me saying I see a weakness in somebody's WC punching defense and counterattack techniques. It's one thing for me to look at a set of "anti-grappling," techniques and make a comment, but quite another for me to, say, discuss somebody's chi sao.

In answer to your questions, no and no. You're not going to be able to stuff his face into the ground because of his posture, if you just try to step back. In fact, if you just try and step back you've handed him your front leg again--all that penetration is gone, but you've given him the single. That's what a sprawl is FOR. It gets your legs out of the way (problem one) and allows you to apply pressure in the right places in order to stuff their face down (problem two). What you are suggesting is right along with that dang redirection crap that I can't seem to get out of people's heads--you can't just "redirect," you have to redirect with intensity and bodyweight and a purpose and you can't have the other guy messing with your legs while you're doing it or your chances of success are drastically reduced. You CAN do it to a guy who shoots like crap because they've extended beyond their base, but why train that way?

As far as the knee we're looking at 1) timing, 2) balance, and 3) Anybody who's done ANY crosstraining is going to keep their hands up to protect their heads on the off chance they accidentally do catch a knee to the head. Work the percentages. I've yet to see a knee hit a guy on the way in, cleanly. I've seen sprawls that went right into knees, however, and that tends to work pretty well.

I normally don't work the ring argument because the ring and the street are different. However, in this instance, I will. Shots are always allowed, and knees to the head are allowed in many events. Not only that but the method that you described (stuffing their face to the ground) would also be allowed. If these were truly feasible methods, somebody would be doing it. But they don't. Nobody tries to time a knee on a guy coming in anymore because the chance they'll wind up on their back is far far greater than the chance of success.

Treat the sprawl like a momentary stance shift--a movement that maintains and preserves both your structure and center, rather than treating it like some sort of antithetical being and I think it will go much more smoothly.

[red5angel]

MP - I think you may have misconstrued what I am saying. I couldnt comment on his technical ability I wouldnt know what to look for, what I am saying is that any martial artist worth his weight could look at a technique someone does and see how it could be countered or nuetralized. Understand?

Stepping back. If my front leg isnt weighted, and I step back, I dont need to step back that far, and I dont need to give him my legs as the step back and the re-direction are all simultaneous.
What I dont like MP is that it sounds as if you claim the shoot is impervious to anything but grappler methods and I have a hard time believeing it. Its no offense to you personally, I just dont believe that that one move is capable of locking up anyone who isnt trained to grapple. I do believe that redirection can work, the problem is in training, and forms the basis for most of my rants on this forum. not enough people train hard enough and properly to understand how say, Wing chun can counter this sort of thing without having to learn BJJ or Judo or whatever the grappling flavor of the month is.
I will make you this deal though MP, I have some oppurtunities to check this sort of stuff out from my wing chun angle in the next six months. I will find out what I can, judge for myself and get back to you with as much detail as possible. You wont have to worry about lies or exagerations either, what purpose would that serve me? If I come to find that I need grappling training then I have no problem doing that. Just so it is understood, I dont expect to be a grappling expert or a wing chun vs grappling expert at the end of 6 months, just have a solid understanding of the basics and how wing chun can approach them.
I trust what you have to say but we all sometimes see things through our own special brand of glasses, and lately it seems that grappling has the CMA world in a strangle hold believeing that its unstoppable (not that you are coming across that way MP) and I just dont believe it.

[old jong]

A good defense...I should say ''action'' against a shoot or any other types of attacks is a perfectly timed and hard punch on the nose at the moment when the shoot action (or any other attack) is going to begin or very early after.You have to be really aware and focussed to do this in order to cut the opponent timing this way.

But, reality says that we are not always so well tuned in our actions and have lots of times to be reactive instead of active.This is why,boxers get hit even if they are training against punches all the times and wrestlers are being take down even if they are the most used to defend against these attacks.There are no magic formulas against any attacks and a good defense yesterday may not work at all today.

[gnugear]

Thanks for all the responses ... lots of good info here.

I'm not totally clear on what a "sprawl" is (I can vaguely imagine it in my head) but I'll get together with my friend and see if I can go over it with him.

We've had a good exchange so far because he hasn't experienced Wing Chun before, and he found it to be quite frustraating.

[yenhoi]

Personally, i see the sprawl as a definite form of yielding and redirection.

Personally, i cannot understand when someone uses a phrase like "grapplers method," that makes no sense whatsoever.

WC guys do not have to crosstrain in judo or BJJ. They need to train hard for all ranges. They need to sparr people from outside thier own school and from other 'styles.'

[Merryprankster]

Red--I really think you will find that stepping back just isn't going to cut it. It's not an issue of weighting--as a matter of fact, if you DON'T weight your forward leg it's that much easier to pick up.

Stepping back, taking angles-- it's just not enough against a decent shot. It's not an issue of glasses, it's an issue of mechanics. A good example might be that Braden and I just got done discussing the use of a "closed stance," for a particular application. Oddly enough it turns out we were talking about the same freaking thing with MINOR variations in execution.

Old Jong--that's why we keep our hands up. I haven't been stopped by a punch to the face yet when coming in. It hurt but I was still able to get the leg. Think in terms of stopping forward momentum.

Here's what I think--grappling is not unstoppable. I think the redirection techniques looked a lot more like "grappling," in the past than they do now because people actually got together with members from other styles and figured out how to do this stuff right. Then for some reason that stopped to some degree. You're going to go out there, and use WC and WC principles, and it's going to wind up looking an awful lot like a sprawl variation called a buckback. But it'll still be WC.

[rogue]

I get the feeling that many non-grapplers think the shoot/double leg is a diving attack. It's more of a lift and dump than a trip.

[12345]

Originally posted by reneritchie
gnugear,
If you're willing to squint and turn your head a little, and fudge the pure 100% WCK thing, you can get basic understanding of the sprawl and cross face in a *very* short time. If it makes you feel better, consider the sprawl part of the end of Biu Jee,
RR

I was going to say this too - the last section of Biu Jee is more like a Sprawl than a lot of other things I've seen it said that it refers to.

**** grapplers stealing our moves !

[12345]

Originally posted by 12345


I was going to say this too - the last section of Biu Jee is more like a Sprawl than a lot of other things I've seen it said that it refers to.

**** grapplers stealing our moves !

It censores the word d a m n!!! How pathetic.

[red5angel]

MP- you are probably right, of course ;) but I guess I have to see for myself just so I know for sure, no offense meant. What I meant by not weighting the leg is the forward leg is not weighted so it is easy and quick to get out of the way when someone tries to sprawl.
Whats a buckback :)

Rogue - I think you are right. I think many people look at the sprawl as a diving tackle to the legs sort of thing. I understand its much more controlled and balanced then that.

[old jong]

''Old Jong--that's why we keep our hands up. I haven't been stopped by a punch to the face yet when coming in. It hurt but I was still able to get the leg. Think in terms of stopping forward momentum.''

I understand what you mean Merryprankster and I'm sure that you got my idea on hitting the guy with good timing.Just a little detail is not clear!...I would never punch to stop his forward momentum! Punching with that goal in mind would just be succesful in making my technique stiff and slow and turn my punch into a push!...Instead,I...(hopefully!) would punch as usual with the only intent of crushing his nose and rattling his brain enough to knock him out or hurt him enough to make him fall wherever his momentum brings him.
We have seen this many times in UFC's and Prides and we should expect to see this even more often in the future as real strikers are getting less and less nervous in face of the takedown.They know the sprawll and how to fight on the ground but they get better all the times in using their punches to defend against these tactics.
I hope that most of us in Wing Chun are training our striking arsenal like warriors are training their weapons.We have to make our punches potent like a real weapon shoud be.Do whatever needed to really punch hard.Do not rely on intellectual or conceptual beliefs or hopes that you will be able to punch effectively.A wing Chun punch should be fast and hard and it is impossible to train that without some serious work.Also, many of us are mostly playing tag when chisauing!...We are often very happy to ''touch'' the training partner even if the touch could not harm a flie!...Would'nt it be a lot better to stop playing this way and strike only when a powerful strike is possible?...Get out of the practice of playing tag.
Sorry for this preaching!...I usually do this only once a year!...Maybe!;)

[Merryprankster]

Red, a buckback is a sprawl where you don't get your weight on YOUR chest on their back. Your use your hands to sort of stiffarm them on the shoulders and you still use the body mechanics of the sprawl, but you are more upright at the end of it--you stay in a more standing sort of situation.

The difference between this and the "Sink your stance and redirecte them," is that you ride them back. You just use their momentum to help you get back. It's great for counterpunching, and avoids the trap of believing that you can just "root," and redirect the incoming attack. This is a situation where I really think the sport angle is the right plug--if there were a way to root out of it, wrestlers would have figured that out. I will say this--once the single leg is taken, the defending wrestler then makes their leg very heavy, and tries to create as much space between him and the attacker as possible. The defender also would try and get the attacker to try and fight him at the thigh, and not the leg. You could take this as a form of rooting if you like--it uses the same basic idea. This is kind of simplistic actually, as it depends on where they single is attacked (low or high)... but you get the idea.

I also would like to say that I'm sure that the "antigrappling," will work. IMO the "antigrappling," done properly, is going to look alot like the "grappling" defenses because good principles are good principles and transfer from art to art. Will it look 100% the same? Nope, but it'll probably look 85-90% the same. Is the answer in WC, probably, but it's going to look an awful lot, when done properly, like what the "grapplers" are already doing.

Old Jong, I knew you didn't mean a punch to the face would stop my forward progress. What I was more getting at was that I really think people SHOULD be thinking in terms of what will stop their forward progress--not, "how can I knock them out?" The reasons for this, IMO are 1. The fact that there are very few one punch knockouts, 2. If you don't knock them out or dissuade them, then they are in because you chose to sacrifice defending the takedown in favor of hitting them in the face. This is an issue of tactics, obviously, and others may disagree. I just think it's a "low percentage," kind of idea, and other tactics are better served.

I also respectfully disagree with the Pride and UFC arguments--what you are seeing is an increase in the number of guys who defend the takedown, then counterpunch when they are in danger. You are seeing a decrease in the number of guys who are trying to punch/kick/knee people on the way in, because they usually just wind up on their butts ;)

Lastly--terminology--a shot is a leg attack. A sprawl is a method of defense to leg attacks :D

[old jong]

I guess you're right Merry!...Chuck Liddel (Do I have his name right?) Is maybe the best at this game. I still remember the way he punched The big guy they call the Monster,Randelman,I guess and knocked him out as Randelman was going to shoot or clinch. The timing was perfect.
I would like to see more of this!;)

[Zhuge Liang]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
if there were a way to root out of it, wrestlers would have figured that out.

It is my opinion that you can only use what you train, and I don't believe most wrestlers train their "root," at least in the sense of CMA. While I agree that most people cannot "root" to negate a shot, I do not agree that just because wrestlers don't do it, no one else can. You might as well use that argument to invalidate everything else, except wrestling. "If there were a way to counter a wrestler without being a wrestler, a wrestler would have figured it out. " If that's the case, why bother with kung fu, or even bjj or muay thai?

Zhuge Liang

[Merryprankster]

Zhang, disagree completely.

The idea of rooting isn't unique to Asian MA. We just call it different stuff in Western arts. You'll most frequently hear--you have to get a good base, base down, base out, etc. It's fundamentally the same concept, based on the discussions I've had here and contact I've had with CMA types (we have a guy that does praying mantis that also takes our MT class, go figure).

Mechanical principles carry over period. If I call an apple an orange, does that change its properties any? You call it root, I call it a base. We train it slightly differently, but the end result is more or less identical. *shrug* What's in a name?

Again, if just rooting or basing were the answer, wrestlers of all styles-western or otherwise, would have done it. The truth is you have to do more than just say "I'm IMMOVABLE!!!"

Having a good root or base is a fantastic idea, and really does help, but it's not the problem solver--just part of the solution.

[red5angel]

MP, worked out with my wrestling friend. Here are some things I notced, please excuse if they may not come out as I want, I am worn out from this last weekend.

1.) The shoot is well balanced and the shooter has good control, although still commits pretty heavily at a certain point to the action.

2.) The main problem I can see for someone countering the shoot without sprawling, or grappling, is how to not give the shooter your leg. A kick or a knee could work, but this , as in anythingelse, depends on the speed of the shooter and the reaction time of the shootee.

3.)The best time to toss a shoot is after you notice the hips set back? What I mean is when the shooter prepares to shoot apparently it is common for the hips to swing back in preperation. I was told this isnt always necessary and many guys are still **** quick. Anyway, when the hips swing back and the shooter begins to sink, this point can be utilized as a 'weakness' depending o fthe level of commitment to the action by the shooter.

4.) The sprawl, while being a good answer for the shoot by a grappler, I still dont see as a good answer for someone who does not want to grapple.

anyway these are just a few observations. We did alot of talking about it as well but like i said I am still a little fuzzy from this weekend. We are going to look at it some more ove rthe next few months and I will keep up with the reports for those who are interested.

[Merryprankster]

Glad you played around this weekend--see what I mean about the leg thing now, at least :)

I suggest that if you train the sprawl alot, it becomes twitchy. There are "fast feet," drills that teach you to sprawl and pop back up very very quickly.

I don't swing my hips back. I do lower my level, but I try to lower it without a "wind up."

I don't trust ANYTHING that relies on good timing or you're toast. The question is--can you afford to miss? If the answer is yes, then no problem, but you said it yourself--if you knee or kick, but don't get it right, what then--the guy takes you down. Major problem.

The sprawl you were shown is probably the full committment, put you on the mat, I want to wrestle variety. See if he knows the buckback. This (trust me) is the answer to what you or looking for. And it will feel very WC'ish, I'm sure. Look, not to be a nudge, but I use this CONSTANTLY when I know the other guy is better on the ground. It's great for staying on your feet and throwing combos out there. Feel free to ask me questions about how to execute this one. It's going to take real committment to learn, just like anything else, but it will help your game immeasurably.

If you learn to sprawl properly, staying on your feet will be a little easier.

Lastly--just wait until you start learning how to defend throws :) A bodylock of some sort is way different than a clinch that somebody wants strikes in:D

[reneritchie]

MP, for the bodylock (lets assume the front for the moment), is there anything besides swimming in the underhook(s) early, or jumping guard, that you've played with successfully. The former seems to have a "depend on timing" element that may or may not work, the latter seems a little vulnerable (especially if they don't mind slamming you on hard surfaces).

(I have a wrestling friend who's insanely fast at shooting for the leg then, if you doesn't get it, zipping up for the body-lock)

RR

[Zhuge Liang]

Hello Merry,

I think you missed my point. My main point of contention was your notion of "If technique X was viable, a wrestler would have already figured it out." That's awfully presumptuous IMO.

With regards to rooting, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. You have CMA friends to compare notes, and I have wrestling friends to compare notes. You say it's the same, I say it isn't.

I do know for a fact, however, that most wrestlers do not train their "root" in the same manner as I train mine. To me, if it looks and feels different, chances are, it's different.




Again, if just rooting or basing were the answer, wrestlers of all styles-western or otherwise, would have done it.


As I said, this argument is faulty. If it is true, why are you studying anything other than wrestling? If we follow this logic, then wrestlers should be invincible, since there is no way that you can counter them that they haven't already figured out.

It's one thing to not believe that rooting and redirecting is effective, it's an entirely different thing to believe that they aren't effective because wrestlers say so.


Having a good root or base is a fantastic idea, and really does help, but it's not the problem solver--just part of the solution.

I agree, show me where I said otherwise.

Zhuge Liang

[fa_jing]

MP - I've just figured out what you mean by buckback, and yes that is pretty much the ideal Wing Chun defense in case of a good, well-set-up shoot. I was at an Augustine Fong seminar a long while back, and that was basically Master Fong's defense, except that his superb angled-retreating footwork, allowed him to remain upright with only a slight lean, additionally he was able to stop the shoot with only one arm. Now if the shooter had been better, I'm sure more lean would be required and it would more resemble what you're used to seeing. Man you are getting spot-on with your analyses! I will mention though, that with the buckback you are placing your hand(s) on the opponent, which to the grappler will give him something to work with. That's something for all of us to be wary of.

[red5angel]

MP - I will have to remember the buckback, it slipped my mind while we were working this weekend.
I can see how if you dont know what you are doing, the shoot is a hard technique to get around, alot harder then I think percieved by people who arent familiar with it. It's much more stable then I thought it would be!
You are correct about speed but I think sensitivity might be the key here. He did make a point to say that there are people who dont wind up and so you had to be careful. He also mentioned the best thing is to stay at the same level but that isn't a satisfactory answer to me at the moment.
He seems to think the key might also lie in the shooters front knee, how about you?

[Merryprankster]

Zhang,

I don't think it's presumptious. Wrestlers across the board train how to take down, and not to be taken down. Most wrestling styles have a standing component--in fact, in most wrestling styles, that is the primary emphasis. Only in BJJ and Folkstyle wrestling, that I can think of off the top of my head, is ground grappling emphasized. Shuia Chiao, Judo, Sambo, Glima, Scottish Backhold Wrestling, Cornish and Lancaster wrestling, Greco-Roman, Freestyle, the indiginous Swiss wrestling that escapes me at the moment, Sumo, and I'll wager, most other styles, place a great emphasis on remaining on your feet at the expense of your opponent. In most of these styles, you WIN if you throw the other guy, so it's even more important.

You're not going to convince me that other cultures are so unenlightened that they missed the concept of root. I think it's awfully presumptious of you to think that only a select part of the world developed and understood this concept, when sound fighting principles MUST carry from effective art to effective art. Biomechanically base and root are the same. I train it with fast foot drills, base drills, and a lot of live grappling. You train it with stance work among other things, to include sensitivity drills (a must) sparring (maybe), and probably some other stuff I don't know about. I've messed around a tiny bit with at least one CMA guy, and he and the ones on this forum who have done some straight grappling all seem to think that base and root are more or less the same thing. If a wrestlers root is bad, they're getting thrown. As this is the primary consideration of wrestlers, it stands to reason they would have figured out acceptable and biomechanically sound principles, the world over. Rooting/basing is not simply a part of this, its step one. It's a must have. Nowhere did I say that rooting and basing FEEL different. I said they were trained differently because training will vary somewhat from art to art. They feel the same (shocker). Next you're going to tell me that the sensitivity developed by grappling and WC are different just because they aren't trained exactly the same. ;)

In short, it's not so much that I don't understand what you are saying. I just don't think you're right.

Red5angel figured out the problem--root and redirect translates into "enjoy getting your ass dumped on the ground," because it hands the shooter your leg. No root in the world survives getting bodily PICKED UP, and a single leg aims to do that with half of you.

Red/fa-jing. The buckback is more or less as you described. The hands are placed on the shoulders only once the guy is committed to a level change. You do it too soon and he posts up your arms, allowing free access to your legs/hips and it's mat time. You are correct that level change is not what YOU want to do, per se. I don't think it will fit with your style well.

Fa-jing is correct in that a committed shot requires more lean. Did you notice, Fa-jing that he YIELDED to the incoming shot as he took the angle and "rode it back?" Yet you could never describe his root/base as weak. He was well balanced throughout the yielding, I guarentee it. You can do it with one arm if the committment is weak.

Rene, the underhooks are a completely different category that, oddly (sarcasm here;)), sort of rely on the same principle as Chi Sao. I'll have to think about this and get back to you because if I stay on here too long, my girlfriend will shoot me.

Cheers!

James

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Merry,


You're not going to convince me that other cultures are so unenlightened that they missed the concept of root.

That's perfectly fine, as it was never my intention.


I think it's awfully presumptious of you to think that only a select part of the world developed and understood this concept,

Please show me where I said that, or where I insinuated it otherwise.


Biomechanically base and root are the same.

In very high level general principle, it may be similar, but not biomechanically wise nor applcation wise. Different muscles are used, the structure is different, and the emphasis is different.


I've messed around a tiny bit with at least one CMA guy, and he and the ones on this forum who have done some straight grappling all seem to think that base and root are more or less the same thing.

That's perfectly valid James, but it doesn't get us anywhere. As I've said, I have a wrestling friend and his "base" is definitely different from my "root". So who's experience is more right?


Nowhere did I say that rooting and basing FEEL different.

No, I said that. In my experience, a wrestler's "base" feels different from (for example) wing chun person's root.


Next you're going to tell me that the sensitivity developed by grappling and WC are different just because they aren't trained exactly the same. ;)

They are different, but not as different as base vs root, IMO. You're looking at a more general level than I. I guess you can argue both ways. Since I don't know too much about grappling sensitivity I won't comment on it.


In short, it's not so much that I don't understand what you are saying. I just don't think you're right.

Ditto. At least we can agree here.


Red5angel figured out the problem--root and redirect translates into "enjoy getting your ass dumped on the ground," because it hands the shooter your leg.

It depends on the skill level of the shooter and the shootee. It also depends on how the shooter shoots and how the shootee roots and redirects. Let me put it this way. You know in those "anti-grappling" demo clips, how the shoot examples are lame, and you say that no decent grappler would shoot like that? Well, no decent MA would just stand still and not do anything while someone moves in the way you describe. I can't claim to know much about how to do a good shoot, but although this is a bit presumptuous on my part, I don't think you know all there is to know about rooting and redirecting.

But if I am wrong, and you feel you understand perfectly, then there's nothing more for me to say. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it though. No, really. =)

Zhuge Liang

[Merryprankster]

zhuge,

I tend to look for commonalities rather than differences in everything. My personal experiences have taught me that we're all doing things far more similarly than we are differently. I also happen to think that application wise and biomechanically these two subjects are more or less the same.

I do agree whole-heartedly that no MA'ist is just going to stand there and take the incoming shot, but as a matter of practicality, the fact is, there are a ton of people out there who don't know how to get their legs out of the way. Is the answer in their style? Sure it is. It's my contention that the "anti-grappling" is going to look an awful lot like the "grappling," answer because good principles are good principles and can't vary that much from style to style. This is not to say that WC will ever look like wrestling, but when WC is countering a grappling attack, it very likely will, with its own minor adjusments and modifications.

Root and redirect is a horribly simplistic answer to this animal, and gives people the idea that all you have to do with a leg attack is push on their head, establish a good base, and pivot, and the guy goes flying off into the nearest wall. It's just not true. Working out, as you do, with a wrestler has probably shown you that this concept needs movement and action behind it--something that can't be executed without practice. Is a sprawl a root and redirect--some will say yes, some will say no. I say its semantics and just want to get my legs out of the way :)

Fa jing! You've been moonlighting at cyberkwoon!

Traitor ;) (PS, notice you're getting similar answers?)

[red5angel]

MP - "root and redirect translates into "enjoy getting your ass dumped on the ground," because it hands the shooter your leg. No root in the world survives getting bodily PICKED UP, and a single leg aims to do that with half of you."

Agreed, that was the main problem I have come across so far, the idea that somehow I need to keep my leg away from my opponent. Hoping to get this one figured out in the next few months.

[reneritchie]

MP - Swimming for underhooks can be like Chi Sao if you're used to using your whole body for Chi Sao and not just your arms, which isn't always the case. Many WCK people, strangely enough, aren't comfortable at the range from elbow in to body center (ie., chest to chest). Watching wrestlers "swim" for long periods of time is certainly interesting, as is watching them "freestyle" a bit by encorporating go-behinds and what not into the practice. Nothing new under the sun, I guess. Please do let me know what your thoughts are on the body lock.

r5a - IMHO, If you know how to maintain your center, its an internal process that can extend far beyond the examples shown in sets to most aspects of life, including everyday walking, and the sprawl. If you don't know how to to maintain your center, you can losing it doing the simplest of WCK dynamics, never mind the sprawl.

RR

[YungChun]

I agree that if you go down that knowing some BJJ may be of some use. However, the Wing Chun man who is ready for any kind of attack and has trained that way should not have a problem staying on his feet against an average grappler. Wing Chun men are not Western Boxers who train to hit targets and ignore the living energy in the opponent and simply stand there in a clinch waiting to be seperated by a ref. Wing Chun teaches balance control and energy manipulation - did someone forget that? And for my money it does it at least as well as the grapplers - it is simply that the objective is different The Wing Chun man wants to stay on his feet and the grappler normally does not.

As always the Wing Chun man must join with his attacker and issue energy. It doesn't matter if he is a kicker or a grappler. If the Wing Chun man does his job then the grappler will have one and only one chance. The grappler must move close enough to issue energy himself. The Wing Chun man trains with contact as does the grappler - there is nothing magical about what the grappler is doing - in fact the grappler is trying to do what Wing Chun does in a sense except he is working with the disadvantage needing to be closer (travel more distance) and doesn't use the Centerline the same way Wing Chun does. The grappler is aware of the 'center' but Wing Chun training and techniques are specifically designed to control the Centerline more precisely while further away than the grapplers - this is the only focus in the system. Don't forget that the WC man can control balance and manipulate energy as can the grappler but I would argue that the Wing Chun man has more experience doing this from a bit further away remember both systems control balance but look at the distance that each focuses on: grappling is more focused on point blank range and on the ground Wing Chun is focused on controlling balance from slightly further away. No matter how good the grappler is if he loses his balance he is in trouble - same goes for the Wing Chun man. If balance is lost by the grappler - even if only for a moment - the Wing Chun man will instantly unleash a flow of hits - further unbalancing him. Wing Chun does not apply holds in this instant for the simple reason that in the time it takes to apply the hold or sink the elbow or get the lock we could have already hit the opponent ten times in the head, neck, eyes and throat and moved on to the next threat - but the Wing Chun man will maintain contact and control of the opponent while hitting him - can you say hand replacement?

There must be Wing Chun people here who have experimented training to fight against take-downs. What were your experiences? I personally have found it fairly easy to stop grapplers (not pro-grapplers - don't know any - just regular ones - I am no pro either) who are trying various kinds of shoots. I have found them to often over-extend themselves - this can be exploited. The problem as I see it isn't so much how to stop the shoot, but rather that the Wing Chun men are often surprised by the shoot. When the WC man does not consider the possibility of the shoot he in essence looses his facing. This is fatal. The WC man must continue facing. This means as the distance closes the WC man must bend over slightly or lower his base if need be as the target moves below his center in order to issue energy into the center of his opponent, maintain his base and deal with the energy of the opponent - this could mean anything from chain punching to trapping (arms AND legs) or issuing energy, but the Centerline must be controlled. A WC man who is not ready for this will lose his facing as the grappler moves under his guard or attack. Anyone who talks of countering the shoot by using knees or kicks has missed the point - try a kick/knee on a good grappler and you'll get dumped- it is the energy of the opponent that must be dealt with and controlled to his disadvantage and as it so happens WC specializes in this. In the end I believe that the victor in the Wing Chun vs. the Grappler scenario will be the man with more sensitivity – that simple.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Fa jing! You've been moonlighting at cyberkwoon!

Traitor ;) (PS, notice you're getting similar answers?)

Well, similar from guys like Okie that know what they're talking about. There are some dedicated grappling trolls over there, however. Really I'm surprised at their insistence and lack of helpfulness. We just need to understand what the other person is talking about, then we can find the overlap of 75%-85% like you said above.

As for moonlighting, well, I just couldn't pay the bills with KFO alone! :)

[yenhoi]

YungChun:

I think your right, but a very weird post.

Boxers, I think, are very aware of thier relationship with thier opponent. The young ones Im sure are just doing target practice, but any boxer 6months+ is aware of the energy relationship you mention a WC man has awareness of.

I think most grapplers grapple on the ground in 1 on 1 situations because thier opponent is weaker there, or, they have control of the opponent and go there because they WILL win there. MerryPrankster mentioned what he does to stay on his feet vs a superior grappler - like a smart boxer rarely takes his chances just exchanging shots, he moves around and trys to box - a smart grappler doesnt just jump on the floor with anybody in any condition.

There is no such thing as a 'Universal' WC man, or 'Universal' boxer, or 'Universal' grappler. Every individual has thier own personal attribute levels, skillsets, favorites, prefered 'techniques' and ranges, etc. Even WC guys are better at something then they are at others, a superior whipping punch, favorite man sau, or dominate sensitivity and trapping ability, some close the gap better or better in different ways and others have very sticky legs. Same with all arts and people.

So, as MP says, good principles are good principles, that is why we can compare skills vs skills and sometimes even techniques vs techniques.

[Merryprankster]

YungChun,

You're right. I've seen the light. WC teaches everything better than every other art in existence. WC is supreme. They should rename it so it is the new Grand Ultimate Fist.

Christ I hate posts like yours. I don't care who it comes from I hate posts that look down the nose at other styles, at the way they do things. It's so dismissive, it's insulting. It's "sifu says," if I've ever seen it.

I'm going to tell you something I don't say very often, and I don't say it very often because to me it's like telling somebody to burn in a lake of fire for eternity. I think you're lying. Everything you've written indicates exceptionally narrow experience and I don't believe you. I've wrestled, I've boxed, I've thai boxed, done BJJ, a smattering of Judo, and sparred several kempo guys and some other fellows of various styles. It's taught me an awful lot about how much neat stuff is out there and not to automatically dismiss other things with blanket statements. Your comments on grappling and boxing demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on either subject and worse yet, an utter lack of curiosity or objectivity.

I've yet to spar a WC guy, but looking forward to the experience.

I'll get to the underhook thing rr, promise. Yen, you're right on the money!

[YungChun]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
YungChun,

You're right. I've seen the light. WC teaches everything better than every other art in existence. WC is supreme. They should rename it so it is the new Grand Ultimate Fist.

Christ I hate posts like yours. I don't care who it comes from I hate posts that look down the nose at other styles, at the way they do things.

Gee sorry you didn't like the post - didn't expect you would.
I ended that post by stating that the fighter with better/more sensitivity would win. Given that I don't see the 'down the nose' thing since I clearly stated either fighter could win. Do you agree with that or not? If not then I think you are the one looking down your nose.

[Le nOObi]

Originally posted by YungChun


Gee sorry you didn't like the post - didn't expect you would.
I ended that post by stating that the fighter with better/more sensitivity would win. Given that I don't see the 'down the nose' thing since I clearly stated either fighter could win. Do you agree with that or not? If not then I think you are the one looking down your nose.

Maybe i lack basic reading comp. but it seemed to me you were putting down several arts! More specifically boxing, wrestling, and any art that uses stand up joint locks.

[red5angel]

LOL! @ MP - you crack me up man! Although, to be fair I think that Yung chun may not have been as down on grappling as it may look. He does appear to be saying that the wingchun man has an advantage at a particlur range or two but I think that can be turned around just as easily.

In all honesty, and I dot know if this coincides with what YC is saying, my wrestling buddy and I came to the conclusion that both wrestlers and wing chun guys train heavily to be sensitive in close, and YCs' final statement about the more sensitive man winning makes sense, all other things being equal.
Of course since I have had a serious hour of grappling training you must understand tha my grappling knowledge is superior ;)

[joy chaudhuri]

The person and the art are not always isomorphic.
A good art can have a bad rep and vice versa.

[Merryprankster]

Joy, totally understood. I did not mean to imply that he speaks for all of WC--neither do I imply that I speak for all of grappling. I don't even claim to be a good 'representative,' just 'a representative.

And a somewhat pugnacious one at that.

I've learned a great deal on this board from many different people. Closed mindedness, regardless of source, annoys me in the extreme, especially if that closed mind does not have a varied experiences. I have a closed mind about minds I perceive as closed. Ironic, isn't it? :D

Red5--you are quite correct. Have you noticed anerlich's posts about how grappling is full body chi sao? As far as YC's post goes, it's not the down on grappling, it's the not-so-subtle insistance that WC is "the best." We all have different reasons for loving an art, but being "the best," shouldn't really be one of them, IMO. Being "the best for me," on the other hand, is a wonderful thing to discover!

[Merryprankster]

rr,

FINALLY, I got to it!

Here's the deal--first, I personally believe that you are allowing your buddy to get too deep. What I mean by this is that whatever you are doing to defending the single leg is allowing access to your hips. You need to keep him further away, or you need to smash him to the mat more effectively, when he does shoot. Practice, practice, practice....

Is he doing something like this:

http://www.themat.com/technique/sweeptoabodylock/default.asp

I ask because you'll notice that the guy who is sprawling has let his opponent in past his arms, and that sets up the bodylock in the next few frames.

Take the hips away, and you take away the bodylock--that doesn't mean that he won't lock up with you. However, by having your hips back you can successfully fight it off.

Your first step is to get your hips away from him. I'm going to assume you are in a disadvantaged position, and that he has both underhooks locked around your mid-back. In reality, that's complete suicide for you to ever let him get THAT deep, but this is just for the sake of argument.

1. Get both of your legs slightly back--you want to create a gap between your hips and his. Yes, you're going to lean into him somewhat, but you want to lean in and sink your weight at the same time, to create a sort of pulling effect down on his arms. If you just lean forward, you'll get thrown. Try to extend his arms and get his hands out of the small of your lower back. The higher up towards your shoulders you can get his grip, the better--he'll have to switch to something different, and that switch will provide some space for you to counter and get away, hopefully.

2. Overhook his arms on both sides, pinch your elbows in and keep your weight sunk. I like to put my fists/palms on his chest, and push away. Your arms should be overhooked, but as elbow down as possible, almost like you are trying to uppercut him, but his arm is in the way. From this position, if I can get my elbows in and my back slightly rounded, I can sometimes make his grip pop off. The trick is to squeeze his elbows in. You want to think about making his arms "shorter." You stick your arms straight out in front of you and try touching your elbows together with your hands wide apart, and you'll understand the effect you are trying to create.

3. If his grip is broken, I would personally pummel for an underhook, because it allows me to control the distance better--bring him in, shuck him off--or allows me to hold and hit--but we're talking about how to get away here. You may want to simply push him off you and resume hitting his face. It's going to be a REAL push though, arms straight and driving into it hard, because he's going to be fighting like mad to get the underhook back in.

Now, you may not have to go through all these steps if you get your hips back in the first place. He may not be able to lock properly, and that gives you plenty of room to maneuver

[Merryprankster]

Red5,

Check this out:

http://www.themat.com/technique/williamsreshot/williamsreshot.asp

Study the first four frames only, and ignore the commentary. The rest of the frames are not really useful to you.

This is the essence of a buckback--the sprawler stays on his feet, uses his opponent's momentum, and glides back with the shot. Note the distance of the intercept--it's far away, compared to a "regular," sprawl.

By keeping the shooter's head and shoulders down, the sprawler minimizes the ability of his opponent to recover. Frame frame four--or even three, it should be obvious that you can push him away and start beating on him.

I CANNOT emphasize enough keeping the opponent jammed down and NOT letting him in deep on this. You may use his shoulders or his head for this. I usually intercept the incoming shot at the shoulders, and, now that we're tactile, I know where his head is, and jam that down hard. I push hard on the base of his skull with one hand and on his nearside shoulder with the other. It puts them away at an angle to you--very handy.

You'll notice this looks alot like the "Traditional," counters to a shot, except that now, instead of "sinking your root," which just isn't good enough, you're protecting your center by getting both legs out of the way.

[red5angel]

MP- thanks for the link, I will study it and this weekend see if my buddy can show me what it is all about. By the way I gained a new respect for the grappling level of sensitivity this weekend. He was telling they periodically would train blindfolded as well so that they didnt rely on their sight.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

Yeah, closed eyes/blindfolded is a regular part of training. You can't see with somebody's body in your face, and you can't see what's going on all the time anyway--have to feel your way through it, know when space is created and when it's shut down.

[red5angel]

MP - Not sure if you saw but you can bring your boxing to that tourney in Ohio. You cant do the chi sao part obviously but they will letyou in on the conitnuous free sparring. I think you should go and see how you do!

[Shadowboxer]

Greetings, I was wondering if you have a link that shows a single leg shot from the "clinch", ie. you have grabbed both my arms to control and are feeling for an opening? I looked at Les Gutches' videos of single leg attacks. The 2 in the videos are in postions that we just don't train in for reasons I'll let R5A explain:D
More or less, the Buckback is what I attempted to describe in my first response to this thread (#2). You also make the point of controlling the head, which is also what I intended in #1 but was perhaps too brief. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you can just stand there and ward off attacks. You have to have a root to make the kwai jarn/kwai sut work, just turning won't do, if there is too much force re-adjust as in what Fong sifu does in the clip mentioned earlier. It's hard to explain and you probably don't know what kwai jarn/sut are, maybe I can film my brothers and post a clip. So, I'm wondering if you have a clip so I can see if the way I'm attacking that leg is"correct". If it is different, I'll try the other way and see what the results are. Are you busy the 2nd week of Oct? Check your PM's

[Merryprankster]

Actually, as soon as you described it, I knew what you were talking about, sorry if I didn't give that impression. I apologize.

You're right-- I have no idea what the chinese terms mean. I'm sure there is something analogous that I have encountered, however. :D I usually find that is the case.

Going from a clinch to a single. Well, sort of. First, if you've got two underhooks, it's kinda odd to go for a single. There's almost no point. Two good underhooks do wonders! If you are in deep enough for two underhooks and can shuck the guy up, better off pulling hard forward on the rear side hook (ie, if their left leg is back, you need to pull hard forward with YOUR right underhook), and shoot the double. You get them to square up, then attack the legs. You could switch off to a single, but why? I'd only do it if they got their leg free.

From a Single underhook, you can shuck the guys upper body up and by HARD, then attack the undefended leg. It's simple--If I have an underhook, there's nothing between his legs and me. I just need to shuck him to ensure that his overhook pressure doesn't stop me from taking the leg. Let me see if I can find a link to that.

[Merryprankster]

Ah, here we are. Seat belt single. Notice how he pulls the side he's attacking forward hard. You don't have to control the waist. You could just go for the leg.

http://www.themat.com/technique/seatbeltsingle/default.asp