Knifefighter's video [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

drleungjohn

04-27-2007, 09:34 PM

Thank you-I didn't know this was posted--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwLFeIqjQ3Q

I think this would make a wonderful discussion of his skills for those with grappling experience-

I will not comment directly since in all fairness I don't have a video of myself up-but a few questions

Knifefighter-did you put this together yourself?
For what purpose?
Did you win any of those matches?
What would you like to see included in a video?

PS and by the way-
Why do you feel you need to test yourself constantly?

Your comments about Judo are incorrect-How many small backyard schools,basement schools,YMCA and Rec Center schools do not enter tournaments but still grade ?
Many Judo instructors joined the AAU for insurance purposes more then anything-
And either I wasn't clear-or you really might have a comprehension problem-
If you had a student who was good at something,wouldn't you work with him on the things he was good at and interested in within the confines of your class and curriculum-and one on one?

What were you doing wrt Martial Arts in the late 70's and early 80's ?
Nobody brought a video camera to class-ever-and back then it was Super 8-and if they did-they usually wouldn't be allowed to film and not take class- and nobody back then would let a stranger film/tape a class-you keep thinking that everybody carries a camera or cell phone with them for your edification and entertainmet-
You have a serious Youtube problem!

And as a point of discussion wrt the single leg take down-again-if you had my right leg-and how you got there w/o going thru all the other ranges safely-Only Scotty will know-which leg do I have my weight on and where is your head?

If on my right,before you get the penetration,couldn't I kick you in the face or shoulder-or land on the back of your head or shoulder with my left knee as examples?

If on my left foot-couldn't I do a sit down and roll back on my left leg as you push me backward-and then kick you in the face/shoulder with my left?

Or are you going to say that you are such an amazingly fast little monkey that I wouldn't have time since you'd be on top of me by then?

And as far as baiting-come on-I asked a simple question about training on concrete-to guys-WING CHUN GUYS-who do it -that's not a bait-I was not looking for a loaded answer-you always are-

But again,you might have a comprehension problem-the recent Eddie Bravo thread pretty clearly illustrates you can't see the forest from the trees-and a clear set up/fake that you tried to defend as real-only because the grappler won

-And finally-as you continue to call me names and accuse me with only your limited opinion of your own reality as fact ,and expertise on everything it seems-
You only make yourself look worse every time you post-It takes one to know one I guess ,huh?

anerlich

04-27-2007, 10:51 PM

John,

I do not intend to watch or comment on the video. The poor guy that posted the Italian WT videos shows how bad an idea posting the video is and the likely standard of comments to be expected.

WRT to the single leg takedown, if it is the low/Smith single I think it is (I ain't watching the dam n video), his left hand would be grabbing your right heel, head on the inside of your right knee.

It is surprisingly easy to get and difficult to stop. When I spar I usually manage to hit every non-grappler with it at least once per session, and I'm no expert. You're basically coming in at an angle too low to punch or knee effectively; if he kicks with the leg you're trying to take he in effect smothers the kick; if you try to kick with the other leg, unless your timing is PERFECT that actually makes the takedown easier as all your weight is shifted to the leg he attacks. Move the leg back, he'll just slide forward and attack the other leg. He's low, but not quite low enough for you to drop your knee on him; he wants his head at the same level as your knee to drive against it.

As for you sitting down and stomping his face, the correct technique (sorry Terence) for him is to drive out to the side with his head, you fall to the side and your free leg gets spun away from him. If he does it right, you can't kick him as you suggest.

If you sprawl on him but he still has your leg, he has a few other options from here, lncluding knee-sliding underneath you and getting the back.

Of course, the above discussion relies on a lot of things going right for him, but realistically this is a pretty high percentage takedown. your margin for error for the counters you suggest is much smaller than his. It takes much less training time for someone to get good enough at this to pull it off reasonably often than it does say for a double leg or fireman's carry.

Watch Sakuraba's Pride fights. He is really good at this and you will see him take guys including Vanderlei Silva down mid-kick regularly.

BTW, I've got a picture in a mag of Sean Sherk trying a double leg on Matt Hughes and copping a knee full in the face. It looks exquisitely timed, and when I open that magazine people across the room cry out feeling Sherk's pain. But ... Sherk lost, but on points. He finished the match.

I agree about the absurdity of damanding video evidence of everything, including back in the time before VHS and Betamax, and the pointless bickering about inconsequential details in people's posts, the baiting, etc. Personally, I think this thread will probably worsen rather than improve things.

Liddel

04-27-2007, 11:10 PM

Because of Pride and UFC and MMA in general exploding around the world, i think people are just going to keep improving....

It wasnt to long ago when you'd laugh at spining back kicks in early UFC.... but now guys like GSP come in and show hey - its not so low percentage after all :rolleyes:

Its my belief that in time youll see things which you thought wouldnt work often becomming more and more doable as great athletes become more and more skilled.

Geppy

04-27-2007, 11:50 PM

Knifefighter

04-28-2007, 12:15 AM

Knifefighter-did you put this together yourself?
For what purpose?
Did you win any of those matches?
What would you like to see included in a video?
Why do you feel you need to test yourself constantly?

Someone asked me to put the clips together to show an example of what my fighting style is like.

My record since starting to compete seriously again about 10 years ago is 102-59-3, plus 47 Dog Bros matches in which there is no official winner/loser.

A video should show a person using his methods going full force against other resisiting opponents who are also going full force.

I test myself because that is one of the ways to know whether or not the training works, as well as what in the training needs to be worked on. I often compete not to win, but soley to work on a part of my game that is lacking and needs to be pressure tested. It is also a great way to improve one's skills, test out new methods and theories, and to develop the ability to handle the huge adrenaline dump that happens in those types of situations.

If you had a student who was good at something,wouldn't you work with him on the things he was good at and interested in within the confines of your class and curriculum-and one on one?

Judo teachers teach judo... judo is very traditonal that way.

What were you doing wrt Martial Arts in the late 70's and early 80's ?
During those years I was training at the Inosanto Academy (where I learned my substandard WC), with Art Saxell (who was Rocky Grazziano's boxing coach), at the Mejiro kickboxing dojo in Tokyo and training wrestling at Fullerton State. I was competing in boxing, kickboxing and wrestling.

Or are you going to say that you are such an amazingly fast little monkey that I wouldn't have time since you'd be on top of me by then?

It's not how fast someone is, it is how they set it up.

As far as all the things you think you could do to counter it, consider this- the force is similar to a football player who spears into the front the opponent's knee while the opponent is weighted on that foot... none of those scenarios that you posted is going to stop the tackle, nor will they stop the low single... as a matter of fact, too much effort at trying to do the things you are suggesting could lead to an ACL tear.

t_niehoff

04-28-2007, 07:00 AM

Why do you feel you need to test yourself constantly?

For me, this is like asking a tennis player "why do you feel the need to actually play tennis?" The real quesion is: why someone would take up tennis to not play tennis? Why would someone take up boxing not to box? Or BJJ not to grapple? Why? And would a tennis player or boxer or grappler even ask such a question in the first place?

I find your question interesting in that it implies that there is something wrong with KF (psychologically?) since he has some "need" to "test yourself constantly." (A "need" I assume that you don't have?). In that case, any athlete who plays a sport must have some "problem", some need to test himself constantly. You don't seem to understand that what he is doing is actually playing the game, actually being a martial artist -- doing what he is training to do. Why do boxers feel the need to constantly box or wrestlers feel the need to constantly wrestle? Because that is the activity they practice. Martial arts is fighting, that's the activity all genuine martial artists do. The training is just to prepare us for the activity; the challenge, the fun, the objective of the training is in really playing the game. If someone isn't fighting, they are not really doing martial arts. Without playing the game, they are doing essentially cardio kickboxing or tae bo or the boxing workout.

drleungjohn

04-28-2007, 09:19 AM

Andrew-very much appreciated and food for thought

Liddel-very true-we will all evolve,get better or perish

KF-Thanks,really-and a Judo teacher will help his student apply his judo in ways that work for the student-ie,entry-hit -throw/sweep-which is what I emphasized in my training-as well as countering all above

Terence- just curious as to why-if you were getting paid to compete I can see it as a necessity-as you know I treat the Jets,so it's completely understood from a money and desire to compete pov-Look at Vinnie Testaverde-he can hardly run,brittle,doesn't need the money-yet he still wants to play-totally understood-

As far as walk the walk,and talk the talk-the question was just "How often and why?"-no right or wrong answers I feel-just based on individual needs--

I think we've had our first civil discussion-

Mega-Foot

04-28-2007, 11:50 AM

Did you ever train with the Takeshi's? There's something in your style I recognize. Granted, it's a little slower and sloppier( I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it looks---modified), but I recognize it in form and function.

Thanks in advance Knifefighter.

Knifefighter

04-28-2007, 01:41 PM

t_niehoff

04-28-2007, 07:51 PM

Terence- just curious as to why-if you were getting paid to compete I can see it as a necessity-as you know I treat the Jets,so it's completely understood from a money and desire to compete pov-Look at Vinnie Testaverde-he can hardly run,brittle,doesn't need the money-yet he still wants to play-totally understood-

I'm sure lots of people wonder why other people do all sorts of high risk, intense, dangerous activities -- the answer is, as you point out: they enjoy doing them. Before Vinnie and the huge bucks, there were guys that still played ball as amatuers and for very little money as pros, again for the enjoyment. Some people like fighting, just like others like mountain climbing and others hang gliding and others bull riding (those guys are some scary MFs!).

As far as walk the walk,and talk the talk-the question was just "How often and why?"-no right or wrong answers I feel-just based on individual needs--

I think we've had our first civil discussion-

Martial arts is the most peculiar form of all the athletic activities, IME, because so many people look at them differently than they do other forms of athletic acitivites (as though different rules, standards, etc. apply). I think that if we all looked at martial arts as no different than any other athletic acitivity -- in other words, put aside all the nonsense associated with them -- I think everyone would get along so much better.

JPinAZ

04-30-2007, 01:21 PM

It is my thought that MA's ARE much different than any other 'athletic activity'.

Compare MA's to things listed above: mountain climbing, or bullriding - usually, the only participant of the sport injured is the individual. I fall off a mountain, I don't injure anyone else. I fall off a bull, either the ground injures me or the bull gets me (or I get lucky and the clowns distract him). In each of these events, there is no 'violence' upon another peson (of course it could be argued that riding a bull is not fair treatment to the animal)

If comparing MA's to basketball, tennis, etc. as is constantly compared, these things ARE much different. How many times do the athletes get sent to a hospital because of a purposefully inflicted injury recieved from the opponent in tennis? Or basketball? Or baseball. These things ARE different (besides saying that yeah, they are all 'sports' - but that doesn't include all MA's, just ones frequented in sporting events - the difference still exists)

Of course, we could look at more sports that tend to be a little more violent, like football, hockey, some soccer, etc. But again, the focus ISN'T soley on injuring the opponent (if it's a focus at all) - only MA's has this. What's the definition of 'Martial'? Does it fit directly to tennis?
Nope.

I think looking at MA's training as an 'athletic activity' is doing an injustice to yourself when training. The activity of fighting, for whatever purpose, is quite different than training for a tennis match. The mindset is different. The outcome is different. In tennis, you are not soley intent on causing physical harm onto another human being. It takes a VERY different person to willingly fight with another person. This mindset isn't necessary in most athletic activities/
I would agree if it's said MA's can be used in an athletic activity (rules, regulations, etc to safeguard the participants) but this is VERY different from what MA's are/were originally intended for. Even in MMA events how many people get small joint locked, fish hooked, eyes poked, etc?

JP

Liddel

04-30-2007, 03:29 PM

Id tend to agree with both of you - We should look at MA's as athletic performance but certainly not as sport. (but you can use it in sport)

Sports have rules fighting does not, rules level the playing field between competetors like a handicap in golf.

InGolf you should learn the energies involved in hitting a ball. In MA's you learn how to apply energies to you opponent and stop energies comming to you.

There are many similarities, but there are meny differences also - so they are related but not the same. :rolleyes:

Knifefighter

04-30-2007, 08:36 PM

Even in MMA events how many people get small joint locked, fish hooked, eyes poked, etc?

More often than the guys who think that they need to train in a different manner than people train for all other human athletic activities and, thus, just end up pretending to train in fighting.

t_niehoff

05-01-2007, 04:34 AM

Id tend to agree with both of you - We should look at MA's as athletic performance but certainly not as sport. (but you can use it in sport)

Yes, of course martial arts are athletic activities -- and like any athletic activity has specific aspects unique to it. When we see them as athletic activites, then we can look at those general things that apply and don't apply to athletics.

Sports have rules fighting does not, rules level the playing field between competetors like a handicap in golf.

InGolf you should learn the energies involved in hitting a ball. In MA's you learn how to apply energies to you opponent and stop energies comming to you.

There are many similarities, but there are meny differences also - so they are related but not the same. :rolleyes:

It all depends on how you define "fighting" -- if you define fighting only as a "street assualt", like a mugging, then yes, maybe that limited self-defense situation does not have any "rules" (tough there are still laws that do apply and will limit what you can and cannot do). But another way to look at that is that there is fighting, the activity (like there is running, the activity), and how and where it is used is a changable and variable factor (running in a race or running for your life from a mugger). Developing skill (your performance ability) in fighting or running will permit a person to adapt it to any situation.

Wayfaring

05-01-2007, 08:48 AM

This is the age old discussion of "sport vs. battle" in martial arts.

In my opinion, MMA is sport. Grappling is sport. There is a distinction between performing in those types of environments than a real fight, and the rules provide the difference. There is even a difference between early UFC's and later ones. One single continuous round until the end of a fight, or 3 5 minute rounds are huge differences in performance. A ref standing a fight up or not is a huge difference.

However, where people get delusional is in thinking that somehow training to compete in these sports is less realistic than training for a "real fight" and that somehow compliant drills and exchanges with no "aliveness" translate into training for a "real fight" because in these compliant drills they may visualize mentally breaking a bone or disabling an opponent. The mental side to the practice really DOESN'T CUT IT.

In reality, training to compete in the sports, involving real high level physical conditioning, alive training, real high level resisting opponents, does MORE to preparing for a "real fight" than mentally visualizing killing someone in a drill.
You won't "snap someone's knee with a cutting kick", or "spearhand through someone's neck", or "end the fight in 4 seconds" in a real live fight against someone who's an aggressive athletic fighter coming at you with bad intent.
Ranges are harder to manipulate and maintain. Strikes are harder to land.
People don't stop closing the gap to allow you to get the best "tan sau" angle. They blast through with ugly aggressive force. If you have not trained with that as an element you will get steamrolled onto your back end and all your "technique" will go out the window in a failing struggle for survival. (And you'll end up in guard too ;) )

KF/Dale's video, competition record is real and gives his opinion weight. He may be over the top, aggressive, condescending, dismissive, and obnoxious at times, but some of the points have real logic to them. Some are full of cr@p. 47 Dog Brothers fights. Dog Brothers motto is "higher consciousness through harder contact". If you haven't experienced "higher consciousness through harder contact" in one form or another my recommendation would be to GET SOME.

SevenStar

05-01-2007, 09:03 AM

PS and by the way-
Why do you feel you need to test yourself constantly?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but many competitors feel the same way. it's just natural, I suppose. There are umpteen other people out there training just as hard or harder than you, and if you start slacking, those people pass you. Competing is a way to see if you are still on top of your game. That mindset differs greatly from the tma mindset of self defense, but that is why you do what you do and why sport guys do what they do. The best way to ensure constant progress is to continually test.

Your comments about Judo are incorrect-How many small backyard schools,basement schools,YMCA and Rec Center schools do not enter tournaments but still grade?

Many Rec center and ymca schools are part of the usji or usja. They have a competition requirement for blackbelt, it I remember correctly. You get points for training and points for competing. You get more points when you win. This point system is all part of determination factor for when a student should test.

Many Judo instructors joined the AAU for insurance purposes more then anything-

if they are in the aau, they are probably still in either the ji or ja, but that's irrelevant.

What were you doing wrt Martial Arts in the late 70's and early 80's ?
Nobody brought a video camera to class-ever-and back then it was Super 8-and if they did-they usually wouldn't be allowed to film and not take class- and nobody back then would let a stranger film/tape a class

in the early 80s, I was training tang soo do. I don't think anyone would've had a problem with video cameras had they been more common, as they had no problem with people taking pictures.

Knifefighter

05-01-2007, 02:54 PM

I would agree if it's said MA's can be used in an athletic activity (rules, regulations, etc to safeguard the participants) but this is VERY different from what MA's are/were originally intended for. Even in MMA events how many people get small joint locked, fish hooked, eyes poked, etc?

The things the sports guys are training in to end the fight (knock outs, choke outs, arm breaks, knee dislocations, foot breaks) are more consistently fight enders than are fish hooking, eye poking, small joint breaks, biting, and nut grabs.

It's a lot harder to continue fighting when you are unconscious than if you have had your finger broken.

JPinAZ

05-01-2007, 04:47 PM

The things the sports guys are training in to end the fight (knock outs, choke outs, arm breaks, knee dislocations, foot breaks) are more consistently fight enders than are fish hooking, eye poking, small joint breaks, biting, and nut grabs.

It's a lot harder to continue fighting when you are unconscious than if you have had your finger broken.

Care to share with us why the last things you mentioned are 'against the rules' then?
Maybe because they allow a person to remove themselves from the first list?

Also, I see this is your second comment on the same portion of my post. Did I not give you the correct attention the first time around? :)

Knifefighter

05-01-2007, 05:53 PM

Care to share with us why the last things you mentioned are 'against the rules' then?
Maybe because they allow a person to remove themselves from the first list?

Also, I see this is your second comment on the same portion of my post. Did I not give you the correct attention the first time around? :)

Finger breaks, eye gouges, nut grabs, etc are were all included in the early MMA events. None of them stopped any of the matches because they are all things that can fought through. These things will cause injuries that last beyond the fight exactly because they are not fight stoppers and fighters will fight through them. Broken fingers, eye problems, etc are all things that will remain after the fight and will interfere with fighters abilities to train after their match is over with. The real fight stoppers are so powerful that they usually stop the fighter in his tracks and, paradoxically, allow the fighter to continue with his training without too much consideration afterwards.

JPinAZ

05-01-2007, 08:08 PM

Finger breaks, eye gouges, nut grabs, etc are were all included in the early MMA events. None of them stopped any of the matches because they are all things that can fought through. These things will cause injuries that last beyond the fight exactly because they are not fight stoppers and fighters will fight through them. Broken fingers, eye problems, etc are all things that will remain after the fight and will interfere with fighters abilities to train after their match is over with. The real fight stoppers are so powerful that they usually stop the fighter in his tracks and, paradoxically, allow the fighter to continue with his training without too much consideration afterwards.

I'm not so sure I agree. I think the rules changed also because these techniques allowed the opponents a way to get our of the grappler's submission attempts. Let's think WHEN the rules changed..
Peeling back a couple fingers, if not even attempting to break them sure can release several kind of holds/submission attempts, can't they? A fish hook has it's uses too, and not necessarily causing long-term injuries. Sure, they are not fight stoppers, but neither is a leg sweep. Besides, I'm not saying these thing are 'fight stoppers' anyway, so not sure what you're saying here.

I would agree that eye poking should never be allowed - ever.

As far as after-fight injuries, I hear ya. But then, a cuncussion from repeated blows to the head lasts a while too. Add many fights with this happening, and you've got a very punchy fighter. Give them another 10-20 years later and what do we have? So not really sure about your long-term/short-term point either.
Plus, you said "knock outs, choke outs, arm breaks, knee dislocations, foot breaks" - are you saying all of these things 'wear off' as soon as the fight is over? Last I knew, a broken foot takes more than a day to heal - and stops training for a while. So does a hyper-extended elbow...

Regardless, I'm not just talking about ring fights anyway. I was talking about what MA's are really intended for. I don't think most were initially developed for the ring, but they are made to work there within limits of rules. That's what the rest of my post was saying - the part that you didn't quote.

Mr Punch

05-01-2007, 09:00 PM

Knifefighter

05-01-2007, 09:06 PM

I think the rules changed also because these techniques allowed the opponents a way to get our of the grappler's submission attempts.

The rules were not formulated to be advantageous to the grapplers. If anything, it has been the opposite. As MMA has become more fan-friendly, the rules have been changed more and more to favor the strikers, since the average fan in more interested in seeing a strikefest than a long, drawn-out grappling chess match.

Peeling back a couple fingers, if not even attempting to break them sure can release several kind of holds/submission attempts, can't they?

Peeling fingers to release holds is done all the time... it's part of hand-fighting, an integral component of grappling.

A fish hook has it's uses too, and not necessarily causing long-term injuries.

If fish hooks were allowed, they would have to also allow biting, which is what normally happens when fingers are placed into the mouth.

Plus, you said "knock outs, choke outs, arm breaks, knee dislocations, foot breaks" - are you saying all of these things 'wear off' as soon as the fight is over? Last I knew, a broken foot takes more than a day to heal - and stops training for a while. So does a hyper-extended elbow...

Unlike finger locks, fighters are forced to tap at the prospect of having a major joint or bone damaged. Tapping keeps the break from happening. Fighters are not as concerned with finger breaks and will keep going when this happens.

Regardless, I'm not just talking about ring fights anyway. I was talking about what MA's are really intended for. I don't think most were initially developed for the ring, but they are made to work there within limits of rules. That's what the rest of my post was saying - the part that you didn't quote.

Ring or street, the major fight stoppers (unconsciousness, dislocations and breaks of major joints and bones) are still the major fight stoppers... even more so on the street.

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 12:02 AM

Do we have to got through this again? YOU spar with some grapplers 'no rules' and see who gets the best position to apply finger breaks and fish-hooks at will! It's trained grapplers that would usually be doing this to the guy they've just dumped on their asses, even if these rules were allowed.

Go through 'what' again? I've never had this discussion here before.
And, I never said 'at will'. 'Trained Grapplers', trained strikers, trained fighters - I thought it's the most skilled that will be doing anything..

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 12:17 AM

The rules were not formulated to be advantageous to the grapplers. If anything, it has been the opposite. As MMA has become more fan-friendly, the rules have been changed more and more to favor the strikers, since the average fan in more interested in seeing a strikefest than a long, drawn-out grappling chess match.

Peeling fingers to release holds is done all the time... it's part of hand-fighting, an integral component of grappling.

If fish hooks were allowed, they would have to also allow biting, which is what normally happens when fingers are placed into the mouth.

Unlike finger locks, fighters are forced to tap at the prospect of having a major joint or bone damaged. Tapping keeps the break from happening. Fighters are not as concerned with finger breaks and will keep going when this happens.

Ring or street, the major fight stoppers (unconsciousness, dislocations and breaks of major joints and bones) are still the major fight stoppers... even more so on the street.

You're going back and forth between 'street' and MMA so much I can't keep up. You are sounding just like your 'other half' now. Your story changes as it suits you. I can't have a conversation like this.

First you knock finger peels (small joint locks) then you say they happen all the time, but we've also talked how they aren't allowed by 'the rules'. So where do they happen 'all the time'? Oh, you must be talking outside of the ring again

Then you're talking about fish hooks and biting not being allowed, so I am guessing we're back in the ring again.

Curious though, why aren't small joint manipulations allowed, if they aren't so threatening? You could use them the same way as a tap-out (if we're talking in the ring) - you don't have to break a finger...

BTW - not all 'fighters' are forced to tap or follow rules, only the sport fighters in the ring. There is a difference you know (and not saying one is any better than the other). And being a sport fighter, do you train the things not allowed? If not, then are you training 'realisticly'? (I only ask because it's a common song sung by you and T)

As far as 'the rules' go, yeah, they were one way to start, and then it seemed they changed to favor grapplers (so maybe the became formulated'to favor a certain style), but evolved yet again once the masses figured out watching 20 minutes of man humping gets a little boring. But there was a while where it was enjoyable seeing a family of fame dominate the scene. But the rules have changed many times, and usually it was a result of the fan's wants more than anything. So, lets be clear waht time period of the rules we're referring to.

Again, I'm not arguing what's a major fight stopper.

Mr Punch

05-02-2007, 01:16 AM

Go through 'what' again? I've never had this discussion here before.Fair enough, sorry, but this particular discussion has been had here countless times.

And, I never said 'at will'. 'Trained Grapplers', trained strikers, trained fighters - I thought it's the most skilled that will be doing anything..I said at will! A grappler who takes you down if you have no grappling experience will be able to pull these things off at will.

And sure, the most skilled will prevail, provided it's skill trained in a useful arena. There are enough grainy old vids on youtube from the early days of Gracie challenge fights that pit them as say shodan in JJ against san, yon, maybe godan in traditional karate... the karateka are more skilled but still get taken down and choked out at will.

If the old footage isn't enough for you, you can still see it nowadays in sports fighting: the less experienced grappler gets taken down and gets put in a dominated position where these fish-hooks etc would be much easier to pull off. And again, since you missed the memo (:D ! ), sure good strikers may have a chance of knocking them out first, but if they don't train against the grapplers they aren't going to be able to land a good shot on one coming in, as they are not used to that movement.

BTW, I'm not trying to be an arse to you (maybe I'm just one naturally :D ), and I agree with some of your points... esp with re to small joint manipulations (over finger breaks - I've never done it but I can believe a fighter can fight through a finger break, but it's less believable to think one'll be able to fight on through a wrist break). I've been rolling far better wrestlers and JJers than myself in the past and I've got control through wrist manipulations from guard (until they got used to it - same thing applies as with the old strikers vs grapplers training argument, if the grapplers don't practice these things anymore they won't be used to seeing/feeling them coming or what to do to get out of them), and I'm quite sure, had there been no rules or had it not been sparring I could've broken a wrist or two.

sihing

05-02-2007, 04:14 AM

If the old footage isn't enough for you, you can still see it nowadays in sports fighting: the less experienced grappler gets taken down and gets put in a dominated position where these fish-hooks etc would be much easier to pull off. And again, since you missed the memo (:D ! ), sure good strikers may have a chance of knocking them out first, but if they don't train against the grapplers they aren't going to be able to land a good shot on one coming in, as they are not used to that movement.

But why compare using a "Unexperienced person" and putting them in a "competition" type environment, right where the grappler wants you. IMO it is easier and more natural to grapple, and easier to gain advantage once the position is taken as compared to striking where the person standing can always run away. Grappling is the ultimate VT concept, trapping. The Gracie's were so successful back in the day because what they were doing was totally unexpected, and they had tremendous skill at it (don't get me wrong, I totally respect them and their art, it is very effective), but their success rate is not a high as it used to be because people are aware of the game. Put the Royce of those video's in a Bar and say, just stand here, not giving anything away and then see what happens. And do the same to the other guy as well. That would be a fairer comparison as this is what happens everyday.

Fish Hooks, Eye Pokes, Biting can help you, but they are not fight stoppers as Dale says. The are disturb actions, meant to get you out of bad situations. Didn't Tito get poked in the eye by Chuck, and that is why he lost? Didn't Hugh's get kicked in the groin area a couple of times and it put him down against GSP? These things do work, but I wouldn't rely on them in a fight and especially in a comp where it is prohibited (I wonder why?).

James

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 07:21 AM

First you knock finger peels (small joint locks) then you say they happen all the time, but we've also talked how they aren't allowed by 'the rules'. So where do they happen 'all the time'? Oh, you must be talking outside of the ring again

Finger peels happen all the time when grapplers are involved- in the ring, in practice, in grappling competitions, or on the street.

Curious though, why aren't small joint manipulations allowed, if they aren't so threatening? You could use them the same way as a tap-out (if we're talking in the ring) - you don't have to break a finger...

They actually are allowed to a certain extent (i.e. hand fighting for grip control). They are not allowed in the extreme (i.e. bending a finger back to break or dislocate it) because the opponent does not have time to tap (or will not tap) before a finger (or toe) is broken. They are not fight stoppers, but definitely are disfiguring after enough of them occur over time. In the culture of MMA/BJJ/sub-grappling, they are also considered cheap.

BTW - not all 'fighters' are forced to tap or follow rules, only the sport fighters in the ring. There is a difference you know (and not saying one is any better than the other). And being a sport fighter, do you train the things not allowed? If not, then are you training 'realisticly'? (I only ask because it's a common song sung by you and T)

One doesn't need to train the things not allowed for several reasons:

1- The most effective things for fighting (unconsciousness and major joint/bone breakage) are already being trained. Better to focus on becoming really good at the best stuff rather than spending time working on stufff that isn't as effective in the first place.

2- Most of the things not allowed cannot be trained at full force anyway. Again, better to train the real fight stoppers realistically than to train the other stuff in a pretend manner.

3- Most of the "against the rules" stuff can be done by anyone. It's the delivery system that matters, not the specific technique. If one is proficient at obtaining the superior postion (back mount, for example), he is the one who will be able to gouge the opponent's eyes out, not the other way around.

Mr Punch

05-02-2007, 07:30 AM

But why compare ...
JamesJames, I don't know if it's just cos I'm frazzled after a long day or what, but I really don't know what any of your points are here.

I wsn7t talking about completely inexeperienced people except as a logical extreme for illustration's sake. I wasnT espousing fish-hooks or whatever.

The only thing I can actually get from your post is this
Grappling is the ultimate VT concept, trapping. which is total bollocks. (No offence! Like I said, I'm tired so I7m talking straight! Forgot to put YMMV IMHO etc etc)

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 07:31 AM

I agree with some of your points... esp with re to small joint manipulations (over finger breaks - I've never done it but I can believe a fighter can fight through a finger break, but it's less believable to think one'll be able to fight on through a wrist break).

I'm pretty sure most MMA events allow wrist locks. I know for a fact they are allowed in submission grappling and BJJ competitions.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 07:38 AM

Grappling is the ultimate VT concept, trapping.

Trapping, at least as defined by most people, is not even close to grappling.

MasterKiller

05-02-2007, 08:52 AM

I know for a fact they are allowed in submission grappling and BJJ competitions.

Only in the advanced divisions, ime.

sihing

05-02-2007, 09:05 AM

Trapping, at least as defined by most people, is not even close to grappling.

When you trap, you immobilize and control. When you grapple on the ground, you immobilize and control, standing grappling you immobilize/control as well, but the person is still on two feet and can fight better. When off your feet you have less mobility and if the person that took you down know's what they are doing you are in trouble. Therefore they are similiar in essence and function, just different circumstances.

Maybe I was incorrect in saying it was the "ultimate VT concept", hitting is.

Dale, I like the comment about delivery systems. You are right on there, anyone can fish hook, bite and poke, it is how it is set up that counts. The Filipino's have a system totally centered around biting, so it is not just a simple act. There's like 14 different biting techniques I believe.

James

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 09:21 AM

When you trap, you immobilize and control. When you grapple on the ground, you immobilize and control, standing grappling you immobilize/control as well, but the person is still on two feet and can fight better.

Grappling and trapping are two completely different things.

Trapping is about pinning an arm or both arms with one's hand or arm.

Upright grappling uses over/underhooks, hand/wrist control, bicep control, elbow control, head/neck control and shoulder control to control the opponent. Grappling makes almost no use of arm pinning type techniques because they are relatively ineffective in resisting opponent situations.

Ground grappling uses the entire body to control the opponent.

Trapping is a method of overcomplicating fighting that was developed by theoretical non-fighters trying to make fighting what they think it should be, rather than what is is.

Wayfaring

05-02-2007, 09:38 AM

Curious though, why aren't small joint manipulations allowed, if they aren't so threatening? You could use them the same way as a tap-out (if we're talking in the ring) - you don't have to break a finger...

Some interesting info about small joint manipulations / aikido / Japanese jiu-jitsu types of locks including finger and wrist.

Roy Harris (BJJ instructor out of San Diego) is pretty proficient with these, and considers it a sub-specialty of his in grappling. I read a thread somewhere where someone asked him about training these effectively. His response basically said he felt it took a miminum of around 700 hours of training those specifically and working them in the context of real grappling positions and energies before he felt they could be used in a live scenario. The gist of the training is you have to be able to slap them on in exactly the right position and recognize by feel or they aren't effective.

In my playing with these my experience is similar. The difficulty is in moving through the transition moments quickly and decisively enough ending up in the right position in a live environment. I've experienced they are much harder to apply in grappling / fighting scenarios than your more standard submissions, although not impossible. In addition I've seen many instances of people continuing a fight with a broken hand. Disabling an elbow, shoulder, knee or ankle usually will not allow someone to continue.

Now if a person is advocating using these small joint manipulations outside the context of training them in a delivery system (position based) and using them against strong position based grappers, I don't think that's a very good recommendation.

SevenStar

05-02-2007, 10:14 AM

When you trap, you immobilize and control. When you grapple on the ground, you immobilize and control, standing grappling you immobilize/control as well, but the person is still on two feet and can fight better. When off your feet you have less mobility and if the person that took you down know's what they are doing you are in trouble. Therefore they are similiar in essence and function, just different circumstances.

but with trapping you are generally trapping and controlling the arms, preventing him from striking. That is nothing like the positional dominance used in grappling. Both seek to control, but in very different ways, and with very different results. Even with standing grappling, I don't want to only control his arm - I am aiming for chokes, chicken wings, full nelsons - locks and holds that allow you to control their entire body.

SevenStar

05-02-2007, 10:30 AM

I'm not so sure I agree. I think the rules changed also because these techniques allowed the opponents a way to get our of the grappler's submission attempts. Let's think WHEN the rules changed..
Peeling back a couple fingers, if not even attempting to break them sure can release several kind of holds/submission attempts, can't they? A fish hook has it's uses too, and not necessarily causing long-term injuries. Sure, they are not fight stoppers, but neither is a leg sweep. Besides, I'm not saying these thing are 'fight stoppers' anyway, so not sure what you're saying here.

I would agree that eye poking should never be allowed - ever.

yuki nakai is blind in one eye from an eye gouge in an mma match...And yet he still won the fight that night. Fingers are not hard to break. they would be broken before a person could tap.

As far as after-fight injuries, I hear ya. But then, a cuncussion from repeated blows to the head lasts a while too.

several weeks.

Add many fights with this happening, and you've got a very punchy fighter. Give them another 10-20 years later and what do we have? So not really sure about your long-term/short-term point either.

that's why the refs stop the match when they think a fighter is no longer defending.

Plus, you said "knock outs, choke outs, arm breaks, knee dislocations, foot breaks" - are you saying all of these things 'wear off' as soon as the fight is over? Last I knew, a broken foot takes more than a day to heal - and stops training for a while. So does a hyper-extended elbow...

a choke does. the others, not so much. they will put you out for several weeks to several months, but are things that are less likely to happen due to their ability to tap from these.

SevenStar

05-02-2007, 10:39 AM

BTW - not all 'fighters' are forced to tap or follow rules, only the sport fighters in the ring. There is a difference you know (and not saying one is any better than the other). And being a sport fighter, do you train the things not allowed? If not, then are you training 'realisticly'? (I only ask because it's a common song sung by you and T)

1. in a sense, yeah, they are forced to tap - unless they want a broken limb. If he does, than he's more idiot than fighter. However, in the street, where these other 'fighters' are, a tap wouldn't matter - they would just have a broken limb.

2. things that aren't allowed aren't really a necessity to train, so yeah, you would still be training realistically. What's not realistic about choking someone unconscious? I don't have to train eye gouges or small joint manipulations in order to beat them.

As far as 'the rules' go, yeah, they were one way to start, and then it seemed they changed to favor grapplers (so maybe the became formulated'to favor a certain style), but evolved yet again once the masses figured out watching 20 minutes of man humping gets a little boring. But there was a while where it was enjoyable seeing a family of fame dominate the scene. But the rules have changed many times, and usually it was a result of the fan's wants more than anything. So, lets be clear waht time period of the rules we're referring to.

okay... name the era you are referring to and what the ruleset was. How did it favor grapplers?

sihing

05-02-2007, 11:24 AM

but with trapping you are generally trapping and controlling the arms, preventing him from striking. That is nothing like the positional dominance used in grappling. Both seek to control, but in very different ways, and with very different results. Even with standing grappling, I don't want to only control his arm - I am aiming for chokes, chicken wings, full nelsons - locks and holds that allow you to control their entire body.

Agreed, grappling is a much better control than trapping, which is just the arms and sometimes the stance, but with the opponent still standing there is more options for them to use to escape. Trapping as I see it is also just a means to a end, to set other things up like you mentioned, rather than being the end. It happens when needed and isn't seen.

James

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 11:53 AM

Finger peels happen all the time when grapplers are involved- in the ring, in practice, in grappling competitions, or on the street.

They actually are allowed to a certain extent (i.e. hand fighting for grip control). They are not allowed in the extreme (i.e. bending a finger back to break or dislocate it) because the opponent does not have time to tap (or will not tap) before a finger (or toe) is broken. They are not fight stoppers, but definitely are disfiguring after enough of them occur over time. In the culture of MMA/BJJ/sub-grappling, they are also considered cheap.

Whether they 'happen' or not, they are not allowed as far as I know in sproting events/competitions, except where there are not rules.
Maybe we just won't agree here. I see your point of finger breaks and disfigurement, but I doubt that was the only reason the rules were changed. Done properly and with little trianing, a finger peel IS a very effective way of removing ones self form several submission attempts.
Maybe that's why the MMA/BJJ/Etc guys call them cheap - that's exactly what they are! I've used them when rolling against a BJJ guy and he said I was 'cheating' -
but it was effective, got the job done, and I didn't have to break his finger... maybe that's why they got banned right around the same time the Grapplers started taking over hte MMA scene. Just a thought...

One doesn't need to train the things not allowed for several reasons:

1- The most effective things for fighting (unconsciousness and major joint/bone breakage) are already being trained. Better to focus on becoming really good at the best stuff rather than spending time working on stufff that isn't as effective in the first place.

hahaha - oh boy, I didn't know you were the all-knowing expert on all things efficient and effective! Let alone what's BEST! Now I know who I'm talking with... :eek:
Maybe this is why you repeat the same things over and over - you know best? :rolleyes:
Please, I'd love to see your complete list of the stuff that's 'best' and what isn't. This should be good!

And, are seriously you saying, if you got in a street fight, you would still stick to sport rules? so no groin shots? No pulling hair? nothing like that? Since these things aren't in the 'rules' they can't be the 'best' stuff?

Are you also saying that a finger peel isn't effective at releasing someone's hold? Are you saying that it doesn't work? (and I'm not trying to kick a dead horse with the whole finger peel thing, but you're really not making any sense).
I'm guessing you don't train it because it's 'not allowed'. But that's not reality.

Again, 'not allowed'... in a ring I guess you mean? And how long does it take to get to these 'fightstoppers'? Do you have that same time on the street? Do you have 3 minutes rolling for a position looking for a submission/armbreak/etc on the street? Or is there a tool that lets you extract yourself easily so you can get back up (like a finger peel)? But let's not use that because it's not 'allowed' in the ring.

2- Most of the things not allowed cannot be trained at full force anyway. Again, better to train the real fight stoppers realistically than to train the other stuff in a pretend manner.

Sure, but your last point makes it sound like they are useless to even consider, since if they are not in the rules, they can't be the best.
BTW, do you train arm breaks at full force? If you do, how many arms do you break a week on average?

3- Most of the "against the rules" stuff can be done by anyone. It's the delivery system that matters, not the specific technique. If one is proficient at obtaining the superior postion (back mount, for example), he is the one who will be able to gouge the opponent's eyes out, not the other way around.

I can 100% agree with this (regarding delivery system vs. technique).

But, because of the fact that "Most of the "against the rules" stuff can be done by anyone", we shouldn't ignore them or count them out as inefficient or ineffective. If I can release a hold on me in 2 seconds with something 'against the rules' I'm going to use that over 40 seconds of struggling for position. So what's more 'effective/efficient'?
As far as 'best', that's just oppinion..

Still be interesting in seeing that list though! :)

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 11:57 AM

Agreed, grappling is a much better control than trapping, which is just the arms and sometimes the stance, but with the opponent still standing there is more options for them to use to escape. Trapping as I see it is also just a means to a end, to set other things up like you mentioned, rather than being the end. It happens when needed and isn't seen.

James

Good point.
Could also be said that successful trapping negates the ability for your opponent to successfully grapple(?)

Jonathan

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 12:14 PM

And, are seriously you saying, if you got in a street fight, you would still stick to sport rules? so no groin shots? No pulling hair? nothing like that? Since these things aren't in the 'rules' they can't be the 'best' stuff?

If the opportunity is there, anything can be used. However, the agaisnt the rules, "cheap" shots are not things that can be practiced with any effectiveness.

Are you also saying that a finger peel isn't effective at releasing someone's hold? Are you saying that it doesn't work? (and I'm not trying to kick a dead horse with the whole finger peel thing, but you're really not making any sense).
I'm guessing you don't train it because it's 'not allowed'. But that's not reality.

Finger peels are trained by most grapplers. Usually one grabs several fingers as part of hand fighting... what you don't do is bend one of them back to the point of having to have your partner get revenge.

Finger breakss and the like are "revenge moves". Break someone's finger and if he manages to choke you out he breaks all of your fingers while you are sleeping, whether on the street or in training.

Again, 'not allowed'... in a ring I guess you mean? And how long does it take to get to these 'fightstoppers'?

As with any fighting, finishes can happen within just a few seconds or much longer... depends on all the factors involved.

Do you have that same time on the street? Do you have 3 minutes rolling for a position looking for a submission/armbreak/etc on the street?

One has the same amount of time with the "fight stoppers" as with the ones that are not.

Sure, but your last point makes it sound like they are useless to even consider, since if they are not in the rules, they can't be the best.

One can consider them if the opportunity presents itself... however, they cannot be trained with any effectiveness.

BTW, do you train arm breaks at full force? If you do, how many arms do you break a week on average?

Yes, the difference in training is that the hold is released when the opponent taps. If he doesn't tap, his arm is snapped.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 12:36 PM

Good point.
Could also be said that successful trapping negates the ability for your opponent to successfully grapple(?)

It's actually the opposite. Attempting to trap someone's arms makes it easier for him to get a takedown because you are giving foreward momentum without the right control points needed to stop the takedown.

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 02:19 PM

So, what are the correct control points? And who says they aren't being used or recognized in trapping?

Underhooks, overwaps, wh!zzers, wrist control from the inside, bicep control from the inside, elbow control from the bottom/top, head/neck control from the back/front, and shoulder control from the front. Standing grappling control points are concerned with clearing the opponent's arms to create an angle and/or preventing him from clearing yours to get an angle of his own. Control points help one to control and block the opponent's foreward momentum and level changes.

Trapping often attempts to push the opponent's arms downward and/or diagonally without dealing with the control points that affect the grappling component of fighting. Because of this, attempts at trapping often give the angle and the foreward pressure that the opponent wants for his takedown.

anerlich

05-02-2007, 03:21 PM

And, are seriously you saying, if you got in a street fight, you would still stick to sport rules? so no groin shots? No pulling hair? nothing like that? Since these things aren't in the 'rules' they can't be the 'best' stuff?

Biting, finger attacks, hair pulls, eye gouges, etc. can all be effective. The mistake made is that some people think that they are ALL you need to win a fight against a conditioned athlete who can strike, wrestle or groundfight with good technical ability.

Roy Harris is known for effective use of wrist locks in grappling. But he's hardly the only one. A guy at a different Machado school to the one I attend, promoted to purple last year, is a total fiend with wrist locks. He can hit you with them from just about anywhere, and you will be tapping.

At BJJ class, we don't do finger peels in a rolling situation. But the instructor uses them often in self-defense applications. There's no reason you couldn't practice them, I suppose, as you demonstrated; IMO they should only be used with preagreement between the parties, like twisting footlooks, due to issues of control. I'd bet that if this were done in most grappling schools though, there'd be lots of dislocated and broken fingers. Bad for students, bad for business.

BTW, do you train arm breaks at full force? If you do, how many arms do you break a week on average?

You can train arm "breaks" against a fully resisting opponent. If you can get the lock and apply it with control against someone trying really hard to stop you, applying it "full force" will be possible.

"How many arms do you break?" is a cheap shot and demeans some of your otherwise worthwhile arguments.

The most effective way to end a fight is to induce unconsciousness through major head trauma or chokes. An unconscious opponent cannot get up and keep coming.

The next is major damage to the body (eyes, throat, groin, larger joints or bones). If you're concentrating on small joints (wrists, fingers), breaking these may not be enough to stop a suitably motivated opponent. So IMO efficiency and effectiveness works on the bigger targets by choice.

Vajramusti

05-02-2007, 04:37 PM

RE-

"but with trapping you are generally trapping and controlling the arms, preventing him from striking. That is nothing like the positional dominance used in grappling."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats a straw man born out of JKD overlay.
Also- "positional dominance" depending on one's meaning is very much part of good wing chun- and you train for it by- gasp- good chi sao.

Cheers and out.

joy chaudhuri

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 04:53 PM

Biting, finger attacks, hair pulls, eye gouges, etc. can all be effective. The mistake made is that some people think that they are ALL you need to win a fight against a conditioned athlete who can strike, wrestle or groundfight with good technical ability.

I totally agree with you. I hope I did not give the imprsession that I think these are all you need to win a fight - far from it. I'm just saying that these things should not be ignored as possible weapons against opponents, or that they can be used against you (more directly referring to on the streets - without rules)
My other point was - if training for a sport event, these things are not allowed, but if you are training 'realisticly' for ALL arenas of combat, they should not be overlooked or ignored.

"How many arms do you break?" is a cheap shot and demeans some of your otherwise worthwhile arguments.

I don't think it was at all. The point I was trying to make is, finger peels can be used without going full force and while still being effective. (I even gave an example - more or less used to counter a certain submission attempts)
Same with submissions. You don't apply full force right away, or there will be no time to tap before the break if you're good. It's called controll & constraint.

The most effective way to end a fight is to induce unconsciousness through major head trauma or chokes. An unconscious opponent cannot get up and keep coming.

totally agreed - IF that is your intended way to end a fight.
Not to argue just to argue, but some may just want to subdue an opponent without much, it any, after-fight damage (police tactics come to mind here). Depending on the intended result, the strategies, tools and tactics will be different.

The next is major damage to the body (eyes, throat, groin, larger joints or bones). If you're concentrating on small joints (wrists, fingers), breaking these may not be enough to stop a suitably motivated opponent. So IMO efficiency and effectiveness works on the bigger targets by choice.

I think it depends on how you use the tools.
I would never argue that small joint manipulation should be considered the most effective/efficient way to 'end a fight', nor did I ever imply that. I'm just saying that they do have thier uses and shouldn't be overlooked/discarded as useful in a 'fight' on the street.
I've also said that they can be the most effective/quickest (efficient) means to a certain end: As shown by my repeated examples - using finger peels to remove one-self from some submission attempts.
This is not synonmous with saying they are used to efficiently 'end fights' - I don't even know how this confusion started, but it was not from anything I wrote here (I never said that, but somehow it seems the words were put in my mouth)
So not sure what your point is if directed toward me.

Jonathan

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 04:58 PM

Underhooks, overwaps, wh!zzers, wrist control from the inside, bicep control from the inside, elbow control from the bottom/top, head/neck control from the back/front, and shoulder control from the front. Standing grappling control points are concerned with clearing the opponent's arms to create an angle and/or preventing him from clearing yours to get an angle of his own. Control points help one to control and block the opponent's foreward momentum and level changes.

These are all from an 'you're already in grappling timeframe" point of view, not particularily from a WC trapping range point of view - the ranges and timeframes are different so the control points might tend to be different. I thought we were talking about WC trapping as a tactic to prevent grappling..

Trapping often attempts to push the opponent's arms downward and/or diagonally without dealing with the control points that affect the grappling component of fighting.

Not in the WC I train.
Or are you referring to the grappling control points you listed above? We should be clear so we are not discussing 2 different things and calling them the same.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 05:39 PM

These are all from an 'you're already in grappling timeframe" point of view, not particularily from a WC trapping range point of view - the ranges and timeframes are different so the control points might tend to be different. I thought we were talking about WC trapping as a tactic to prevent grappling..

Trapping range and grappling range are the same.

Not in the WC I train.
Or are you referring to the grappling control points you listed above? We should be clear so we are not discussing 2 different things and calling them the same.

Maybe you can link me to a video clip somewhere showing the type of trapping you are talking about so we can see if we are on the same page.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 05:41 PM

I totally agree with you. I hope I did not give the imprsession that I think these are all you need to win a fight - far from it. I'm just saying that these things should not be ignored as possible weapons against opponents, or that they can be used against you (more directly referring to on the streets - without rules)
My other point was - if training for a sport event, these things are not allowed, but if you are training 'realisticly' for ALL arenas of combat, they should not be overlooked or ignored.

How do you train these at full force?

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 06:01 PM

Trapping range and grappling range are the same.

Maybe you can link me to a video clip somewhere showing the type of trapping you are talking about so we can see if we are on the same page.

Huh.. I'm not just talking 'ranges'. Like I already said in what you quoted, I'm also talking about differenent timeframes as well. The difference isn't JUST range.

It seems what you listed would put the participants at less than one-arms's distance away, just moving into body-to-body contact. This would be past the 'trapping' range. Not sure how you say they are the same range, let alone timeframe.
In your examples previously, are you saying both participants already have control over the other? Are they standing erect with all 3 dan tiens aligned or leaning/crouching? In some, it seems they can have neck/arm control simultaneously, or ability to. This would also be past the trapping 'timeframe'. So they are different. Grappling is grappling. Anything else is not-grappling.

Again, not sure if we are going to agree here. I do not have any links to what I am talkng about (actually, I don't post videos, and have no idea where an example of what I'm talking about could be found unfortunately).

Jonathan

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 06:09 PM

How do you train these at full force?

I don't, nor did I ever imply I did. What kind of stupid a$$ question is that?

I can only assume you are trying to imply that unless things are trained full force how do you know they actually work?

Let me ask you the same thing - How do you train arm breaks at full force unless you are breaking arms? You're not. You train them so you apply just enough force to cause someone to tap, but not enough to break the arm - otherwise you'd just be breaking arms. Doesn't mean they won't work if you apply full force, nor does it mean you aren't training realisticly. The key word is TRAINING.
I don't think you have to train things 100% force to learn how to use them. I think this is pretty easy to grasp.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 06:16 PM

This would also be past the trapping 'timeframe'. So they are different. Grappling is grappling. Anything else is not-grappling.

What the heck do you mean by "timeframe"?

Watch this video... all the distances you see there are grappling ranges.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 06:21 PM

Let me ask you the same thing - How do you train arm breaks at full force unless you are breaking arms? You're not. You train them so you apply just enough force to cause someone to tap, but not enough to break the arm - otherwise you'd just be breaking arms. Doesn't mean they won't work if you apply full force, nor does it mean you aren't training realisticly. The key word is TRAINING.
I don't think you have to train things 100% force to learn how to use them. I think this is pretty easy to grasp.

Yes, you have to train things at full force to be able to apply them.

And, yes arm breaks are applied at full force. They are applied at full force and released immediately when the opponent taps... that's why it is not uncommon for joints to get snapped when people don't tap in time, especially in tournaments.

Most sub-grapplers have had quite a number of times when they were pretty sure the opponent's arms were going to break because he was not tapping... and sometimes the break does happen.

sihing

05-02-2007, 06:24 PM

It's actually the opposite. Attempting to trap someone's arms makes it easier for him to get a takedown because you are giving foreward momentum without the right control points needed to stop the takedown.

Anything can happen in any given situation. This is like saying if you go for your takedown you are open for a neck/shoulder control, bla bla bla. When you use my trap for a takedown control you'd better make it happen in a split second, because like I said, the trap is an ends to means and not the end, and shouldn't be seen. It's not impossible to do, use the takedown control from the trap, but neither is using the takedown control to trap and hit? Also is the fact that you better have the sensitivity and cooridination attributes to deal with what I am doing. If not then how do you over come my movement when you have no idea (neither do I since it is a split second thing, and not planned) that it is coming? Any and everything has a counter. One of the things that I like about Sifu Lam's methods is that Ving Tsun is not about the technique (trapping per say), but about control and feeling. When you have control, you train to prevent alot of the counters possible from your opponent. If it's all about hitting, and you lack the control you may be defeated alot easier than setting up the control while you hit. In Sifu Lam's system you learn about control/power points, places on the body used to set up movements, and how to control them, and use them for your advantage. These are just things he teaches to help the end result, hitting and winning.

James

Wayfaring

05-02-2007, 06:41 PM

The disconnect in discussing ranges is as follows:

BJJ Ranges
1) Long Range
2) Standing Grappling Range (clinch range)
3) Ground Grappling Range

Wing Chun Ranges
1) Long Range - no contact possible
2) Kick Range - 2 steps - kicks
3) Long Striking Range - 1.5 steps - short kicks / extended punches
4) Trapping Range - 1 step - simultaneous block / strike
5) Close Range - grappling range

I don't think I have all the names of the ranges right, but the concepts are.
Some of the dispute is what connection BJJ 2) standing grappling range has with WC 4) trapping range.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 07:15 PM

Also is the fact that you better have the sensitivity and cooridination attributes to deal with what I am doing. If not then how do you over come my movement when you have no idea (neither do I since it is a split second thing, and not planned) that it is coming? Any and everything has a counter. One of the things that I like about Sifu Lam's methods is that Ving Tsun is not about the technique (trapping per say), but about control and feeling. When you have control, you train to prevent alot of the counters possible from your opponent. If it's all about hitting, and you lack the control you may be defeated alot easier than setting up the control while you hit. In Sifu Lam's system you learn about control/power points, places on the body used to set up movements, and how to control them, and use them for your advantage. These are just things he teaches to help the end result, hitting and winning.

Are you doing this stuff with experienced grapplers, or is this just "this is what I think is supposed to happen against the takedown" theoretical rhetoric?

sihing

05-02-2007, 07:30 PM

Are you doing this stuff with experienced grapplers, or is this just "this is what I think is supposed to happen against the takedown" theoretical rhetoric?

Are you doing it with experienced Wing Chun guys, or is this more of your theoretical rhetoric? All we have here is theory and discussion. And no, I'm not trying it against experienced grapplers (I did meet a guy in LA, a senior there that has played with experienced grapplers and used the stuff to avoid takedowns). It's a possibility. The way you made it sound, is like it's an absolute that the trap is a guaranteed setup for the takedown, I countered with another possibility. That is why we are here right, to discuss? Plus if I were to spar with the grappling guy, my plan is to hit, be aggressive, not play his game, not to setup a trap. It's a means to an end, not the end.

Also I'm never thinking, this will happen or that will happen. You just fight/spar, react, move, hit. Trapping is there, hitting is there, takedowns are there, you play and find out what happens then play again.

Maybe we're both right in the end (I think I said that in my post).

James

P.S. This is one of the problems I see happen on this forum. Someone presents a possibitily, someone else counters it, and is called on it and asked if it "really works" and if "I've used it". This is a discussion forum, we're here to discuss things. I never said anything was a guarantee, that absolutely you can counter that with this. All fighting is chance actions, gambling. Terence has freely admitted that we shouldn't look at him for physical proof, why ask me knifey? Have you seen T physically do anything fighting wise on video or live?

anerlich

05-02-2007, 08:15 PM

I've also said that they can be the most effective/quickest (efficient) means to a certain end: As shown by my repeated examples - using finger peels to remove one-self from some submission attempts.
This is not synonmous with saying they are used to efficiently 'end fights'

Presumably your aim in a fight is to end it.

Your finger peels etc., in the context you are using them (I think) are for escapes. Escaping a submission attempt does not end the fight, usually. Unless you are very lucky and get the guy to give up to a finger lock, you will need to keep fighting until the fight ends - and as I think we agree, that's probably more likely by choke. KO, or trauma to major joints or other body parts, rather than fingers and wrists.

I agree they can be a means to an end in some circumstances the one you discuss in particular - take em if you can get em, especially if you can't get anything better ... just not IMO the first choice for an fight ender.

"Like a finger pointing to the moon ... concentrate on the FINGER [and you know what happens]" - a quote from some inconsequential MA guy.

I think we differ on emphases rather than anything fundamental. WE practiced wrist locks at MMA class on Tuesday, and a finger peel as a prelude to a standing hold escape in BJJ class a few weeks back. They have their place.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 08:32 PM

P.S. This is one of the problems I see happen on this forum. Someone presents a possibitily, someone else counters it, and is called on it and asked if it "really works" and if "I've used it". This is a discussion forum, we're here to discuss things. I never said anything was a guarantee, that absolutely you can counter that with this. All fighting is chance actions, gambling. Terence has freely admitted that we shouldn't look at him for physical proof, why ask me knifey? Have you seen T physically do anything fighting wise on video or live?

I asked you because you were using yourself as an example:
"When you use my trap for a takedown control you'd better make it happen in a split second, because like I said, the trap is an ends to means and not the end, and shouldn't be seen."

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 09:20 PM

Presumably your aim in a fight is to end it.

Your finger peels etc., in the context you are using them (I think) are for escapes. Escaping a submission attempt does not end the fight, usually. Unless you are very lucky and get the guy to give up to a finger lock, you will need to keep fighting until the fight ends - and as I think we agree, that's probably more likely by choke. KO, or trauma to major joints or other body parts, rather than fingers and wrists.

I agree they can be a means to an end in some circumstances the one you discuss in particular - take em if you can get em, especially if you can't get anything better ... just not IMO the first choice for an fight ender.

"Like a finger pointing to the moon ... concentrate on the FINGER [and you know what happens]" - a quote from some inconsequential MA guy.

I think we differ on emphases rather than anything fundamental. WE practiced wrist locks at MMA class on Tuesday, and a finger peel as a prelude to a standing hold escape in BJJ class a few weeks back. They have their place.

Cool - It seems we understand one another. I agree with what you are saying, and it seems your are saying what I am trying to say.

Yeah, the finger peel is a means to and end - get me out of the submission attempt, nothing more (unless indeed, somehow it causes the other guy to quit fighting - fat chance). From there, I'd have to definetely use something else.

Thanks for the conversation.

Jonathan

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 09:32 PM

What the heck do you mean by "timeframe"?

Watch this video... all the distances you see there are grappling ranges.
What video..

I didn't think this was so complicated.

Timeframe = A period during which something takes place or is projected to occur

IE - grappling, striking, bridging, kicking, fleeing, trapping, etc.
For example, there can be no grappling in a long range kicking. There can be no trapping in a grappling timeframe where one person has the others back.
If I expect to grapple, but my opponent keeps me from grappling, I cannot enter a grappling timeframe.

This can be done by keeping a certain range, changing angles of attack, height veriations, etc. You could use range, facing, trapping, striking. etc The result is: I'm keeping you out of the grappling timeframe.
Or, grappling could be used to tie someone up and stop them from getting into a striking timeframe.
It can be range-only dending on POV. Or it could be looked at from a facing/spacial POV. There are many variables.

Hope this is clear. But trapping and Grappling CAN be the same range, but again the could not be the same range. There are many variables as I've listed above.

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 09:38 PM

Yes, you have to train things at full force to be able to apply them.

And, yes arm breaks are applied at full force. They are applied at full force and released immediately when the opponent taps... that's why it is not uncommon for joints to get snapped when people don't tap in time, especially in tournaments.

Most sub-grapplers have had quite a number of times when they were pretty sure the opponent's arms were going to break because he was not tapping... and sometimes the break does happen.

Wow, you continue to amaze me.

Are we talking training or tournaments? Or street? 3 different things. hopefully, you do not use the same energy for all 3...

Example - In WC, there are several arm breaks, using a quick snapping energy. Do them full force with proper speed, power, intent and setup, and the break is almost instantaneous - there is NO time for a tap. The arm is simply broken. Do it like this in 'training', and you'll soon find you have no trianing partners.
You MUST train these things with restraint. That's why it's called 'training'. You don't go full force, and you don't half-a$$ it either. You apply just enough pressue so they cannot wiggle out, but you aren't causing any real long-term injury.

Am I the only one that sees it this way?

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 09:50 PM

Example - In WC, there are several arm breaks, using a quick snapping energy. Do them full force with proper speed, power, intent and setup, and the break is almost instantaneous - there is NO time for a tap. The arm is simply broken. Do it like this in 'training', and you'll soon find you have no trianing partners.
You MUST train these things with restraint. That's why it's called 'training'. You don't go full force, and you don't half-a$$ it either. You apply just enough pressue so they cannot wiggle out, but you aren't causing any real long-term injury.

This is the classic "too viscous to be trained for real" argument that was the basis for Kano's development of judo and subsequent challenge matches against traditional Japanese Jujutsu in the 1800's. Pretty much the same with the challenge matches of BJJ vs. traditional styles in the 20th century... and pretty much the same results in all cases- the "too deadly" guys were generally smashed.

The fact is, while these breaks should work intantaneously in theory, they actually don't work very well when finally attempted against real, resisting and skilled opponents.

It has been shown over and over again that training things that can be trained at 100% leads to better results than training things that cannot be done this way. This is exactly the reason why so many TMA people got annihilated in the early MMA days.

JPinAZ

05-02-2007, 10:07 PM

This is the classic "too viscous to be trained for real" argument that was the basis for Kano's development of judo and subsequent challenge matches against traditional Japanese Jujutsu in the 1800's. Pretty much the same with the challenge matches of BJJ vs. traditional styles in the 20th century... and pretty much the same results in all cases- the "too deadly" guys were generally smashed.

The fact is, while these breaks should work intantaneously in theory, they actually don't work very well when finally attempted against real, resisting and skilled opponents.

It has been shown over and over again that training things that can be trained at 100% leads to better results than training things that cannot be done this way. This is exactly the reason why so many TMA people got annihilated in the early MMA days.

I think you're missing the point completely. There's really no more point in discussion this further.

drleungjohn

05-02-2007, 10:17 PM

Knifefighter(-and I don't know why I am wasting my time here,since a closed fist-mind-has no manners)-

Real trapping involves not only controlling 2 hands with one-but also breaking the opponent's horse or structure and creating a change in cerebellar function so they can't fight back-that is true trapping-to have no where to go-
The stuff you have seen,been taught,think, as trapping is only grabbing,slapping and parrying w/o true ging or correct body mechanics-

For example-Pak Sao-when done correctly-will shock you into your spine-AT the same time you are hit in the face-because the Pak is done with the whole body,not just the arm-not just a "slap block" onto the arm-there is only one correct direction-into the spine-this will cause the weight to go to one leg and the body line to break vertical axis-a lop sao done correctly will have a whiplash effect to the front or rear-this changes the entire dynamic-

From a Wing Chun perspective-and how you can continue to comment on things you don't really know or understand????sigh--your concept of range is wrong and or misinformed when you say grappling range and chi sao range are the same-it isn't-however-it "might be" in the correct scenario

Wing Chun's "chi sao" range- -starts in man sao range-your "steering wheel " range-Even that is incorrect chi sao-
In order to hit someone in chi sao-they must step into the back end of Man Sao range or the beginning of Wu Sao range to reach them with good biomechanical advantage-ie not a straight arm punch--

As you progress to higher levels,chi sao starts at leg range(chi gerk) into hand range into elbow range into etc--

So when you say a ****zer is in chi sao range-it is not-it has past optimum chi sao range for most discussions-the question would be-how did you get there? How did the ****zer happen? What was he or you doing before the ****zer was applied?-BUT-Once the true concepts of chi sao are learned and can be applied(yes I know,big if)-any range has feeling and sensitivity in it-it's all chi sao

Neck Clinching is one range-Head to head clinching is another range-chi sao rolling is one range-Exchanging techniques is another-elbow range,or hook, uppercut range would fall into the neck clinch range

Any type of grabs,from over or under -to pass an arm to get into range enough to grapple,should be met with punching and kicking

You do not "set out to trap"-you set out to hit,kick and run over him-it's accidental,not incidental-like locking-it's provisional and situational if it's present-

Do you lock naked-mostly no-you tranquilize him,stun him,give him something to think about-to pause or freeze him-to make it work-"trapping" is the same thing-it is not the end all-not the desired effect-it comes of the failed hit with a clash of arms

All Southern Short Hand,as well as Pa Kua,Tai Chi,Shuai Jiao all feel with the body at some point in the development of skills and body feeling-

Sincerely yours,
The BSer,Clueless Liar

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 10:27 PM

Real trapping involves not only controlling 2 hands with one-but also breaking the opponent's horse or structure and creating a change in cerebellar function so they can't fight back-that is true trapping-to have no where to go-

Ah, yes... more theoretical non-fighting blabbering B.S.

LOL @ trapping "creating a change in cerebellar function".

drleungjohn

05-02-2007, 10:31 PM

Do you know what creating cerebellar dysfunction means?-obviously not-since you immediately go for the ridicule and name calling-

Tells us-don't play the you tell me game because the Wing Chun guys know what I mean-

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 10:32 PM

sigh--your concept of range is wrong and or misinformed when you say grappling range and chi sao range are the same

Grappling range starts as soon as the grappler can touch his opponent. That's when all the setups begin.

Knifefighter

05-02-2007, 10:46 PM

Do you know what creating cerebellar dysfunction means?-

If I remember from my neuropsych course correctly, the cerebellum is responsible for coordination and balance. Creating dysfunction would affect these and, possibly cause tremors. This would be a result of damage to the structure of the cerebellum, often observed as shrinkage in part or all of the structure.

Cerebellar dysfunctions are caused by toxic substances (such as seen in chemotherapy and, sometimes, long-term alcohol abuse), inherited disorders, strokes, MS, and tumors.

Last time I checked WC trapping methods were not one of the causes of cerebellar disorders.

It's quite inventive all the B.S. the theoretical non-fighters come up with... what will they think of next?

sihing

05-03-2007, 04:32 AM

I asked you because you were using yourself as an example:
"When you use my trap for a takedown control you'd better make it happen in a split second, because like I said, the trap is an ends to means and not the end, and shouldn't be seen."

I would love to get together with the grapplers in the city (there's a good MMA school here that does well in the competitions, and my training partner know's one of their competitors from work), that would be cool, but my priority is my own training first. Time is limited and since I am still learning all this stuff I need to use the time to train it.

I used myself as an example because I know my abilities, there better be something there after all these years, lol. I'm not saying someone couldn't use my traps to setup a takedown but it better happen fast. And like John said, it's not about just standing there and slapping a hand around, you are setting it all up with a hit and control of position (everything is temporary in a fight, you have control you lose control, in a milli second). My idea is to put the other guy on the defensive, thinking about what I am doing rather than the reverse.

James

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 07:00 AM

I used myself as an example because I know my abilities, there better be something there after all these years, lol. I'm not saying someone couldn't use my traps to setup a takedown but it better happen fast. And like John said, it's not about just standing there and slapping a hand around, you are setting it all up with a hit and control of position (everything is temporary in a fight, you have control you lose control, in a milli second). My idea is to put the other guy on the defensive, thinking about what I am doing rather than the reverse.

How often do you spar at 100%?

drleungjohn

05-03-2007, 07:06 AM

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 07:10 AM

Let's try it in a Wing Chun sense -since that is what we are trying to talk about-in the land you say you like to live in- function-

so-what do you think that means-?????

Because you ignored the obvious,or missed it-the main cause of it wrt balance,coordination and proprioception in this context-

LOL... I have no idea what the fantazy fu people think they are doing to the cerebellum when they are trapping... just as I have no idea what the no-touch chi knockout people are thinking in their fantasy world.

sihing

05-03-2007, 08:46 AM

How often do you spar at 100%?

Asking me how often I spar 100%, has nothing to do with the conversation, because this is not about me. It's about a possibility, a counter, a method. If nothing in WC works, for anyone then why is it still around. I spar very little at 100%, but my definition of sparring maybe different than yours, with different criteria and rules. Right now for me I am absorbing something specific within my system. I'm a newbie to WSL/GL VT, so therefore I am not a proper rep of the system to demonstrate anything effective. Go visit him if you really want to see it for yourself, instead of using me as a reference point, he lives in the same city as you (not that I am setting up challenges or anything like that, because I'm not. To see what I am explaining here on the forum, go visit the person that created it and is teaching it, the source). I have experienced people using these methods against me, and I have a good understanding intellectually of what the material is, just that I haven't caught up physically yet, but it is coming along.

I presume that you are trying to prove the point that because I do not spar at 100%, that I can perform what I say. Maybe so, but this isn't about me, and the possibility that I can or can't will always exsist, even if I was sparring 100% all the time. That is the human factor, mistakes happen to everyone regardless of what their skills/abilities are. Yes, higher intensity training and sparring will improve the ability to use the skills, for sure. But you have to have the skills at a certain level first, then can you use them with more intensity.

James

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 08:56 AM

Asking me how often I spar 100%, has nothing to do with the conversation, because this is not about me.

My conversation is with you and is about you because you are using yourself as the example. You said:
"I used myself as an example because I know my abilities, there better be something there after all these years..."

I presume that you are trying to prove the point that because I do not spar at 100%, that I can perform what I say. Maybe so, but this isn't about me, and the possibility that I can or can't will always exsist, even if I was sparring 100% all the time. That is the human factor, mistakes happen to everyone regardless of what their skills/abilities are. Yes, higher intensity training and sparring will improve the ability to use the skills, for sure.

This has nothing to do with how good you are or are not. It has to do with knowing your abilities.

I asked you how often you spar at 100% because you cannot really know your abilities unless you are doing just that.

But you have to have the skills at a certain level first, then can you use them with more intensity.

And how long have you been practicing these new skills?

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 09:04 AM

If nothing in WC works, for anyone then why is it still around.

I'm not saying that nothing in WC works. Some people may be making it work for themselves. However, the people that are doing that are the ones that are regularly out there mixing it up in a variety of different venues.

As far as the WC that doesn't work and why it is still around... there will always be people who don't feel a need to test anything out and are satisfied just to be hanging out in the safety of their training coccoons pretending that they have devastating fighting skills.

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 09:28 AM

I have experienced people using these methods against me, and I have a good understanding intellectually of what the material is, just that I haven't caught up physically yet, but it is coming along.

The stuff you are talking about may or may not work. However, you are in no position to make a judgement one way or another. You are making pronouncements on how effective it is against a grappler working for takedowns although you only know it intellectually and have never actually tried it against a grappler. Your only experience is having had it done against you (was this even in a hard sparring situaton?), although you have zero experience in grappling.

Wayfaring

05-03-2007, 09:29 AM

Grappling range starts as soon as the grappler can touch his opponent. That's when all the setups begin.

And let's just say that the 3 range model of training in BJJ including this grappling range hasn't exactly been instrumental in helping BJJ pracititioners in high levels of MMA contests develop effective striking.

So what adaptations of this do you implement when training striking? You aren't going for takedowns 100% from when you can touch somebody in MMA are you?

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 09:36 AM

And let's just say that the 3 range model of training in BJJ including this grappling range hasn't exactly been instrumental in helping BJJ pracititioners in high levels of MMA contests develop effective striking.

Watch Matt Serra's smashing of Georges St. Pierre or Gonzaga's KO of Cro Cop in their recent UFC matches if you think BJJ guys aren't developing striking games.

So what adaptations of this do you implement when training striking? You aren't going for takedowns 100% from when you can touch somebody in MMA are you?

Striking sets up takedowns and takedown work sets up striking attacks.

Wayfaring

05-03-2007, 09:42 AM

How often do you spar at 100%?

Define 100%. I've seen very few exchanges at 100% that go on for an extended period of time. MMA fighters don't spar at 100%. They may go 100% against the Thai pads and bags. Training in the ring/cage they don't throw 100% bombs at each other. Even in the ring there are very few matches you see at 100%. They scale probably from what I can see from 60% to 100% through any given round.

Grappling is more easily trained at close to 100%. However, I'd even say there unless you're dealing with someone in PCP spaz mode it usually scales. You don't stall posturing up in guard starting to set up a pass at 100%. Transition scrambles go to 100%.

I think that's why Matt Thornton (and I can see TN getting all dreamy eyed here) makes the distinction of "alive" vs. "static" training.

Maybe a better question would be "How often do you spar 'alive' as opposed to compliant scenarios?"

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 09:49 AM

Define 100%. I've seen very few exchanges at 100% that go on for an extended period of time. MMA fighters don't spar at 100%.

All fighting requires some sort of pacing and knowledge of when to ramp things up or down. By 100%, I mean going all out to beat your opponent (this would include the pacing that necessarily occurs during a fight).

MMA guys may not spar at 100% all the time in training, but they are doing so in their matches. Anyone who competes will tell you that they are completely spent after a hard match.

Unless you one is testing himself in these 100% scenarios, he really doesn't know his abilities.

Wayfaring

05-03-2007, 09:50 AM

Watch Matt Serra's smashing of Georges St. Pierre or Gonzaga's KO of Cro Cop in their recent UFC matches if you think BJJ guys aren't developing striking games.

Exactly. They are moving beyond their strict BJJ training and starting to cross-train in striking arts that define ranges more precisely than "non-grappling range".
What range was Gonzaga in when he hit the KO kick? Serra pretty much didn't look to me like he was setting up any takedowns against GSP. He was more in pursuit and destroy mode striking, although he is a very talented grappler. Actually his hands striking were the most impressive thing about him in that match and the surprise of that to GSP probably played into his win.

Bottom line is striking skills require a little more detail in being aware of and defining ranges (or as some call them timeframes). Gonzaga would not have landed that kick from grappling range.

Striking sets up takedowns and takedown work sets up striking attacks.
OK - so a blend of working tools at different ranges

Wayfaring

05-03-2007, 10:01 AM

By 100%, I mean going all out to beat your opponent (this would include the pacing that necessarily occurs during a fight).

OK. And that's where the benefit to competitions comes in. Even in friendly competitions, the human competitive nature tends to come out and escalate things. Experience in that type of environment helps prepare for realistic scenarios.

So for schools like wing chun schools, a good first step to moving out of compliance mode might be setting up some internal competition where you have a winner and a loser. Or some kind of scoring system where you evaluate sparring to have a winner and a loser. The measurement helps to raise the quality.

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 10:05 AM

OK. And that's where the benefit to competitions comes in. Even in friendly competitions, the human competitive nature tends to come out and escalate things. Experience in that type of environment helps prepare for realistic scenarios.

So for schools like wing chun schools, a good first step to moving out of compliance mode might be setting up some internal competition where you have a winner and a loser. Or some kind of scoring system where you evaluate sparring to have a winner and a loser. The measurement helps to raise the quality.

Exactly... a lot of BJJ schools and boxing gyms have in house competitions to bring up the level of the guys who aren't yet doing outside competitions.

Also, the clips posted on the European WT guys doing the full contact fighting in the ring with each other were a good example of this.

JPinAZ

05-03-2007, 10:47 AM

Watch Matt Serra's smashing of Georges St. Pierre or Gonzaga's KO of Cro Cop in their recent UFC matches if you think BJJ guys aren't developing striking games.

Striking sets up takedowns and takedown work sets up striking attacks.

Sounds just like T here. Not answered the direct question from own experience as was asked, just pointed somewhere else... I'm thinking it's a pointless effort trying to have meaningfull dialog with either of them at this point..:rolleyes:
*** edit - I'm not saying knifey doesn't have the experience, but if it's going to be asked of others, might as well answer from his one experience as well ***

Good points wayfaring - I think you're on the right track here.

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 10:52 AM

Just like T. Never answered the question from own experience as was asked, just pointed somewhere else... I'm thinking it's a pointless effort trying to have meaningfull dialog with either of them at this point..:rolleyes:

Ummm... I was a standup fighter for years before I started training in BJJ. I've trained boxing, Muay Thai, JKD, WC and FMA stick and knife. I think I have a bit of personal experience with combining BJJ with striking. My whole weapons fighting method is about combining weapons striking with BJJ.

However, the question was regarding today's top MMA fighters and what they are doing. If you want to have meaningful dialogs, maybe you should bother understanding the posts in the first place.

JPinAZ

05-03-2007, 10:58 AM

(Please see my edit) My error

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 11:03 AM

BTW, I did reply to his question regarding what I do in terms of adaptations. Maybe you didn't understand it the way I phrased it, so here's a rephrased version.... I use striking (as well as standard wrestling set-ups) to set up takedowns and takedown attempts and threats to set up striking attacks.

JPinAZ

05-03-2007, 11:20 AM

sihing

05-03-2007, 11:29 AM

The stuff you are talking about may or may not work. However, you are in no position to make a judgement one way or another. You are making pronouncements on how effective it is against a grappler working for takedowns although you only know it intellectually and have never actually tried it against a grappler. Your only experience is having had it done against you (was this even in a hard sparring situaton?), although you have zero experience in grappling.

Wrong. I said that this is a counter to your proposition that a trap can be used as a takedown control, not that what I said is a GUARANTEED COUNTER to that. Nothing is guaranteed in fighting. You nor anyone can teach you guaranteed techniques that win each and everytime. I provided a counter to your position on trapping. This is a discussion board right?

Your putting words in my mouth.

James

Wayfaring

05-03-2007, 12:35 PM

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 03:24 PM

You guys, what is "trapping" exactly we're discussing? Is that the goal to immobilize an arm and punch over the top of it?

I think that is worthy of it's own separate thread.

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 03:25 PM

Wrong. I said that this is a counter to your proposition that a trap can be used as a takedown control, not that what I said is a GUARANTEED COUNTER to that. Nothing is guaranteed in fighting. You nor anyone can teach you guaranteed techniques that win each and everytime. I provided a counter to your position on trapping. This is a discussion board right?

I'm not talking about guarantees. I'm talking about experience. Since you have no experience with or against grappling, everything you are saying is based on a purely theoretical non-fighting standpoint.

Yes, this is a discussion board. You want to discuss things you have experience in- I will gladly defer to you in that area. Go ahead and talk about how your new WC methods work better in chi sao against your training partners than your old methods did and you will hear no argument from me. Talk about what you are actually DOING with it, rather than what you think you can do with it, and you will not hear me pipe in with my two cents worth.

However, when you start talking about how they work against grapplers' takeddowns (something I've been DOING for 30 years) when you have absolutely no experience in that realm, then I will tell you you are completely unqualified to make those statements.

sihing

05-03-2007, 04:31 PM

I'm not talking about guarantees. I'm talking about experience. Since you have no experience with or against grappling, everything you are saying is based on a purely theoretical non-fighting standpoint.

Yes, this is a discussion board. You want to discuss things you have experience in- I will gladly defer to you in that area. Go ahead and talk about how your new WC methods work better in chi sao against your training partners than your old methods did and you will hear no argument from me. Talk about what you are actually DOING with it, rather than what you think you can do with it, and you will not hear me pipe in with my two cents worth.

However, when you start talking about how they work against grapplers' takeddowns (something I've been DOING for 30 years) when you have absolutely no experience in that realm, then I will tell you you are completely unqualified to make those statements.

Telling you how it can work against grapplers is okay in my book. Telling you IT WILL work against grapplers in not okay in my book. One is a guarantee, one is a possibility. Nothing wrong with possibilities Dale. Your comparing the wrong things IMO. Your looking at ME, and reading what I say, and thinking if I can't do it or haven't done it, then what I say means sh!t. Well you could be right or wrong, you don't know for sure, neither do I, because anything can happen in a fight. Success in not guaranteed, all you can do it put the odds in your favor.

Also, it is not about what I think. I do practice the stuff I am writing about. It does produce itself on a spontaneous occasions when training it. Whether or not I can use it against a experienced grappler is no where near my mind, because first of all the need may or may not be there. My intention is to hit, not trap, or showcase VT. Second, I haven't had a street fight since public school, the chances of that happening and that fighter being a grappler are slim to none, so why would I worry about it, lol. I like VT, I like the training, I like the teaching and I never made claims that it is the supreme Martial Art in the world, or that trapping is a win all the time technique. You made a arguement, I countered with a possibility. Take it or leave it, trust the source or don't, it doesn't require me to prove myself or what I said as a possible reality. You may be talking about experience but I am talking realistic possibilities. Telling you that I could use my jedi secret chi power'd mind force against your grappling takedowns is a fantasy. You said that the trap can be used against us, I said you better be able to react fast enough due to the training VT provides and the reflexes it gives me/us. Sounds like a discussion to me.

James

Knifefighter

05-03-2007, 04:35 PM

You said that the trap can be used against us, I said you better be able to react fast enough due to the training VT provides and the reflexes it gives me/us. Sounds like a discussion to me.

The difference is that I am basing my discussion on experience, as well as theory, and you are basing yours on theory alone.

sihing

05-03-2007, 04:40 PM

You guys, what is "trapping" exactly we're discussing? Is that the goal to immobilize an arm and punch over the top of it?

I've heard some of the JKD "trapping" type of definitions. I've done the Yip Man chi sau drills where you pin 2 arms with one and strike.

But honestly, I don't think in the striking training (WC or other) I've done I've heard a lot about "trapping" in the sense of targeting limbs. I mean if a wedge blows through at an angle, it may jam up some things on it's way in to the target, sink and blast. But I just am not sure I have a good grasp on what everyone means by "trapping". And whether we are all talking about the same thing.

Good questions. Trapping is immobilization or control, just like grappling is, but grappling is better in the fact that you really can immobilize someone when they are unable to move, since they are off their feet. I believe that if you wedge your punch through at an angle to jam something up is trapping as well. Offense and defense is built into the VT system, so there are many variations of the trapping concept (one arm controls two & strike like the e.g. you used). The key I believe is that it is a helping action, like bong, not a primary action, which is hitting. Trapping can also involve stance, balance, position, reaction, setting up, and things like that, which are not necessarily involved with pinning someone's arms. They are all concepts or ideas that may never be needed but are there to provide options in a fight. Is there one way to avoid a car accident or many? Many I believe as the one way may not work in all situations.

James

sihing

05-03-2007, 04:47 PM

The difference is that I am basing my discussion on experience, as well as theory, and you are basing yours on theory alone.

Your experience is my theory, since I am not you and have no way to experience what you have exactly. You may have experienced what you said against some VT guys, and convinced YOURSELF of it's effectiveness, but you haven't done it against all. Until you do it with everyone it is still conjecture to all of us. The same goes for what I said. We all have to experience it for ourselves, that is a given and I'm sure you could pull it off in some situations, as your obviously a dedicated Martial Artist with some skills. The fact is that sometimes what I said may work, and sometimes what you said may work. Both situations though will require skill and effort to apply, which most people of this world have little of regarding Martial skill.

James

sihing

05-03-2007, 04:54 PM

And how long have you been practicing these new skills?

For me about a year, but I had to start from scratch, since virtually everything I learned before in the TWC is different in the WSL/GL system. Especially in the stance work and footwork aspects. I had to relearn how to sit, piviot, move, face with my hips, etc etc.. Plus the idea with useage of the upper body is different as well. I can understand the concepts alot easier than I can demonstrate the concepts, but that is changing now and the progression is happening faster. I've learned the entire level one cirriculum of Sifu Lam's system and am absorbing what I can as fast as I can, I've got a long way to go. This is the basic level of his entire system. The real sh!t begins to happen in the level 2 and 3 cirriculum's, which is unqiue to his own thinking about VT.

James

drleungjohn

05-03-2007, 08:50 PM

-well this thread sure sank with a left turn--

KF-Not fantasy fu--the answer was trauma--

A whiplash or shock to the head,as in a push,shove,jerk or pull creates a functional whiplash that activates the cerebellum,which creates change in the proprioception between the Occiput and Atlas-as well as the cervical spine and body in general-this causes the body to go into immediate alarm stage because it's utmost priority is the righting reflex-that the head wants to be level with the horizon and under the pelvis-all non priority muscles,actions,thoughs are frozen until the emergency has past-good trapping does that-not slapping-
As I said-it employs attacking the spine thru the bridges with proper ging horse,angle and biomechanics of the whole body,not just the arm-

This is proper technique,not theory-something you really can't comment on since you by your own admission have had no success with WC and substandard Wing Chun at that

I'm done-flame on----------------

Liddel

05-03-2007, 11:02 PM

Dale -

Although IME VT has a huge range of differences in practices between lineages, is this not true (perhaps in a lesser form) of other arts.

The reason i ask is you post as though every grappler is the same, learns the same thing and subsequently fights the EXACT same way.

Ive sparred MT guys that have trained for twice as long as me in VT and ive been found wanting... Ive also sparred some that were just terrible with the same amount of training.

This is true of other arts ive encountered on many different continents.
I live in New Zealand, a relativly small country compared to the states or Canada

IME uniformity in styles isnt present the world over (ive traveled alot) - meaning i havent been accurate in guessing peoples skill based on style or time spent alone.

So how can you be so specific, moreover so certain when discussing hypothetical fight situations......

I understand your POV based on said experience and im not out to compete at top levels so we are different in that regard but even so, my close friends that have greater experience than myself at least have a more open mind in terms of possibilities, curious...:rolleyes:
DREW

Knifefighter

05-04-2007, 06:22 AM

Although IME VT has a huge range of differences in practices between lineages, is this not true (perhaps in a lesser form) of other arts.

The reason i ask is you post as though every grappler is the same, learns the same thing and subsequently fights the EXACT same way.

I'm not talking in terms of people, but, rather, in terms of techniques and principles. Trapping, at least in the "forward pressure, pinning the arms" sense, makes it easier for a grappler to set up his takedown because it gives him the two things he wants- forward pressure and no effective control/blocking points.

Liddel

05-12-2007, 07:57 PM

Trapping, at least in the "forward pressure, pinning the arms" sense, makes it easier for a grappler to set up his takedown because it gives him the two things he wants- forward pressure and no effective control/blocking points.

If i understand you right - then i doubt anyone could disagree with you on this - theoretically. :p

The point im trying to make is put foward in your quote.... it "makes it EASIER for the grappler", its not CERTAIN.

Every style out there could take any given moment / situation in an 'example fight' (for the sake of discussion) and state what/ how his style could capitalise from it.

The deciding factor in my mind is the individuals ability to use timing...

In this situation of 'trapping' being discussed, for me at least, trapping is a technique never used on its own. Its always used to gain the space and/or timing to apply another action, like a punch in the face or a takedown of my own :rolleyes:

Hell in your vid - some of the kicks you gave missed and you turned with the momentum comming around face to face with your opponent again.

Now giving your back, for a VT fighter provides an opening.
Hell for a BJJ guy this provides a group of possible moves to perform like a takedown or RNC right ?

But the timing wasnt there in that senario for that to happen.....

I hope you see the point im trying to make :o