The kung fu stance and the sprawl

[NorthernMantis]

I have always wanted to post this but never did until Legends takedown thread sparked the urge to do so.

From what I have read here this is my interpretation of a sprawl and correct me if I'm wrong:

>you sink your weight down in order to prevent being taken down or in Chinese terms uprooted<

I hear people say oh I don't understand what stances are for, they're impractical.

How in the world are stances any different!Am I the only one in here that has actually used horse stances successfully to maintain groud againts various larger opponents?What kind of kung fu practitioners are these?No offense to the person who said this but I remember some kung fu guy in here saying that he was learning how to sprawl since he didn't understand the concept of stances.

Look I am not claiming to be a master or a good fighter however I am 5'5 124 lbs and I have held my own againts guys almost double my weight and much taller people.

I'm sorry to vent but I just can't understand the mentality of some people these days.

I am speaking from experience.I'm not some guy who claims something without no proof like how many mma criticize some traditionalists.This is something that I have used and tested repeatedly not only in my style but againts others as well.

[yuanfen]

Hey Northern Mantis: You are not off the mark at all IMO. I do a southern style and I take the same position. Merry prankster's posts are informative about how how different kinds of grapplers operate today. The problem is kung fu is hard work and most westerners dont like to do the required training and have quite weak stances in their kung fu. The sprawl is a good idea - if one doesnt know good kung fu. But if you develop good ma and ma bo and know the subtleties on how to use them many other options open up.
Of course I am not talking about show wushu but the real stuff.
Lots of folks on these chat lists have not done kung fu deeply enough.

[logic]

"You sink your weight down in order to prevent being taken down,uprooted."

yeah thats basiclly what I do,but you need to have some good practice on your stance and practice your spawling from the shoot

A little grappling experience will also help.
I believe in a good root, but always be ready for the sprawl.

[NorthernMantis]

Thanks for the respond guys.I wasn't sure how the respones was going to be.I agree with yanfen,most guys want to be bruce lee in 3 easy steps.It's not going to happen that way.Like in all things it takes hard work in time.

[straightblast5]

Actually a sprawl is when you kick both your legs back away from an opponent driving in for a single or a double leg takedown. As you kick your legs back, you drop your weight (from your hands and chest) upon your opponent to smother his/her forward momentum.

However, speaking from a traditional CMA standpoint, you can kick one leg back from a horse stance (so you end up in a forward arrow-stance) and turn your structure into an anchor to stuff your opponent's forward drive by placing your forearm on his/her shoulder or by using a stiff arm (similar to the one used in American football to redirect a tackle).

But combat (to any degree of intensity) is dynamic, so the above is only an example and not a step-by-step guide to defending a takedown or a tackle.

Happy Holidays,

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[SevenStar]

No doubt that stancework can be effective, but remember to keep your options open. Don't discount the sprawl. It's my preference to be proficient with both.

[Mr. Nemo]

You don't ONLY sink your weight - you throw your legs back so the other guy can't grab'em. Have you ever seen somebody sprawl? It doesn't look like any chinese stance I've ever seen.

As for the sprawl only being for people that don't know "good kung fu", my sifu has been doing kung fu for forty plus years and he showed us a sprawl and told us that was how one defends a leg shoot. The sprawl is not a "shortcut"; in fact, it's included in the "falling" training my sifu teaches, which is 100% chinese.

[NorthernMantis]

Like I said correct me if I'm wrong

[yuanfen]

Again- nothing against the sprawl. But with sufficient and right CMA training you dont need it- but dynamically you never say never in a real situation . But CMA stance training needs to be well devloped. BTW Mr Nemo if your profile is right you havent been doing CMA very long and its a mix. One needs both stance and mobility CMA style.

[Merryprankster]

A good "root," is important, and I believe can only be developed by mat sense... repeated experience. The weight shifts are subtle sometimes. Sometimes not :)

The only problem I have with the concept of "sinking your root," is that this idea works pretty well on a double leg, or if your opponent has overextended himself on a single.

If you do what straightblast5 suggests, you will have a REAL problem if a low sweep single (my fav) or ankle pick comes your way, or the corner is turned after you resist the double. Sinking into your stance to root yourself makes these three options a cakewalk.

This is why wrestlers prefer the sprawl. One basic defense to all leg attacks. Simple to learn, simple to drill, and the rest is drill drill drill to make the move instinctive and perfect. Many variations exist on the theme. Plus, popping back into what ever stance you choose after a good sprawl is simple as can be.

Yuan, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one :) I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but I could say "with right and proper wrestling training, there is no need for kicking." ;)

[yuanfen]

Meryprankster:
I didnt say a thing about kicking. Most kickers dont know what they are doing. But again there too- never say never. Also, rooting
varies with structures.

[Mr. Nemo]

Yuanfen: If with enough CMA training you don't need to sprawl, what would you suggest in it's place in response to say, a double-leg takedown?

[NafAnal]

Simple, step back into a bow stance and aim a viscious knee to his face.

Either that or a simple elbow to the head as he comes in, or a rear thrust punch cracking his skull.

[NorthernMantis]

"It doesn't look like any chinese stance I've ever seen."

Mr. Nemo you're correct about that but what I meant was that the goal was the same; to keep from being uprooted.

Good post everyone.I expected to get flamed left and right about this one.

[Archangel]

Northern

I'm really having trouble picturing this defense, can you elaborate a little more on it. Is your legs in the Horse Stance staggered or parallel. How do you stop the shooters fwd momentum?


NafAnal

"Simple, step back into a bow stance and aim a viscious knee to his face.

Either that or a simple elbow to the head as he comes in, or a rear thrust punch cracking his skull."

Sorry Mr. Anal but no it isn't that simple. To hit a good shooter the exact moment before he makes contact, in the exact spot to stop him is VERY unlikely. If he has already made contact and your on your way down, you no longer have a proper base to derive any sort of power to deliver your strikes.

[Braden]

If you think you can 'root' out a takedown attempt, with chinese stances or otherwise, you clearly haven't had anyone even moderately competent trying to take you down.

I'm as big a proponent of the benefits of structure derived from chinese stance training as you'll find - but it's very clear to me that the purpose of this is NOT to counter via structure and weight sinking someone who has their arms around your lower body. It simply cannot be done - regardless of how developed your 'kungfu' is.

Striking someone shooting on you is great. But do you want to rely, in this circumstance or any other, on a technique that works great if everything goes perfect, but completely loses the battle for you if it fails? I certainly don't. Couple that 'striking' with A) getting out of the way of the momentum and B) 'bungling' the other guy up with countergrappling. I'm no wrestler, but it seems to be that the sprawl is one good way of doing this. I don't believe it is the only reliable way - however, this doesn't change the basic principle that you need to have A & B in your strategy.

[straightblast5]

Merry Prankster,

"If you do what straightblast5 suggests, you will have a REAL problem if a low sweep single (my fav) or ankle pick comes your way, or the corner is turned after you resist the double. Sinking into your stance to root yourself makes these three options a cakewalk."

I think you have misinterpreted what I have written. In suggesting to kick back into an arrow stance (not a horse stance), I meant to do so before my opponent has a grasp of my leg(s). If your opponent has a hold on your leg(s), I doubt even a sprawl would be sufficient. What I suggested is not a static position, but like the sprawl, it is only a single motion within the sequence of a fight. Once you have stopped your opponent's forward momentum (with either what I had suggested, or with a sprawl) one must continue to attack the opponent or move out of range. If I would merely maintain the position after the stop (albeit successful), I am sure a low sweep would be "cakewalk", but like the sprawl, what I have suggested is not a static position but a juncture within a continuing sequence.

Perhaps I was not clear in my description, but what I had suggested in my previous post is a valid defense against a tackle, a single, or a double. It's not only used in CMA, but within various schools of Jujitsu. But as with any defense, concept is more important than technique (the concept being to stop your opponent’s forward momentum long enough to continue into another action without being entangled in a takedown) and whatever technique you choose (be it a stop or a sprawl) should efficiently achieve the objective stated in the concept. And the defense I suggested, just as the sprawl, is valid for this objective. It is just one of several options.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[Braden]

Straightblast - I think MP's main point was that there's actually a wider variety of 'mean things' you can do to a 'rooted' leg than there is to an 'empty' leg. This is contrary to what seems to be popular opinion among people who don't train takedowns, that 'solidifying' the targetted limb/base will counter the takedown attempt - which is worse than false.

[straightblast5]

Braden,

"Straightblast - I think MP's main point was that there's actually a wider variety of 'mean things' you can do to a 'rooted' leg than there is to an 'empty' leg. This is contrary to what seems to be popular opinion among people who don't train takedowns, that 'solidifying' the targetted limb/base will counter the takedown attempt - which is worse than false."

I train takedowns and "solidifying" a limb (and leaving it static) for the taking was not what I meant either.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[Archangel]

staightblast,

I am a little confused, if you throw only one leg back and your in bow stance the shooter will automatically attack the forward leg. If he has your leg, it's not over yet; you can still get a wizzer or a crossface but you could be taken down an any time. i don't see why this Bow stance would be advantageous to throwing both your legs back.

[friday]

does anyone here sink there chi pretty much instantaneously
such that they can't be lifted or moved out from their position?

[Merryprankster]

does anyone here sink there chi pretty much instantaneously such that they can't be lifted or moved out from their position?

Only those of us who also can jump twenty feet, execute a spinning drill kick to the chest of our attackers, and then sword fight at the tops of tree branches.

Braden, you are correct. There is a wider variety of things I can do to legs that are planted (ie, if you are trying to punch me) vice legs that are not.

straightblast5--the sprawl works even if your opponent has one leg. Generally speaking you try to do two things in this situation, along with keeping your hips away:

1. Create space between your leg and their body. A good tight single has the leg hugged in. If I can extend your arms a little, you are now fighting my leg with your arms, vice with your body.

2. Try to force you to fight my thigh by getting your arms wrapped higher around my leg (ie, put your own leg down hard.) Very few people in this world can fight your thigh and win.

That said, dropping back into a stance like that, one leg forward, one leg back, just gives me your forward leg. I don't have to change anything about my shot, I just turn the corner now, because I have a post around which to turn.

sb5--I ask with all sincerity, because I want to clarify what we are actually discussing. When you say you train takedowns, how do you mean that? Do you train with an opponent who shoots at your legs a lot? How good a wrestler is this opponent?

No disrespect is intended. Judo defends takedowns too, but most judoka don't commonly deal with wrestler's shots on a very regular basis in randori.

NafAnal--what you have described is an impractical dream world. Can what you talk about happen? ABSOLUTELY. However, to hit a shooter on the move with the right timing and power is a phenomenally difficult proposition... and you only have one shot at it. If you miss and your opponent is in, you're on the ground. You must incapacitate the shooter or completely stop the full force of their body accelerating through you. This is not easy.

Yuan-- I know you said nothing about kicking. I was pointing out the logic. I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I judge from your postings that you are more than experienced enough to be drawing from your own life events.

[Braden]

Friday - 'Sinking your chi' won't make you unmovable. Someone competent shooting on you will be aggresively breaking your structure. As 'sunk as your chi can get', it won't stop someone from depressing the fold of your thigh/hip with their shoulder or one hand to break your posture, while lifting the same side's ankle with the other foot to throw you back and slip into a legbar - for example.

In my experience, 'sinking your chi type stuff' is better used to develop sticking/yielding type energies - a root which is dynamic, responsive, and inherently attacks the opponent's balance, rather than the dramatized and dangerous stereotype of an immovable master. This is a strategy which is consistent with moving out of the way and countergrappling, as alluded to above.

[friday]

hahaha
thanks..its always good to hear other ppls views on these things

[KenWingJitsu]

I am laughing my @ss off!!! Why do I even read these forums.

You guys should be thanking Merry Prankster for his ability to tell you the REAL deal about take doens & sprawling.

All this "rooting" sh!t ain't gonna do you much good when a real wrestler attacks your legs. You'd better learn the spawl kung fu fighters in you don't wanna end up baing taken down. And even then, better learn what to do when you do get taken down.

:)

[yuanfen]

Merry prankster said:Yuan-- I know you said nothing about kicking. I was pointing out the logic. I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I judge from your postings that you are more than experienced enough to be drawing from your own life events.
--------------------------------
I understand our disagreement. I do comment based on both experience and practice without beating drums about the former.
I understand the arguments for sprawl and its use specially in the grappling arts asa sport.And ina real situation one may have to bring out all kinds of things.. perhaps the sprawl...so I am not dogamtically against the sprawl. But to be fair- I just had a big ex wrestler coming at me today- ofcourse not ina real confrontation-
but simulation. And to refresh memory and intuition. I wanted to see whether I needed to sprawl to contain and "hurt" him. I didnt. Of course one never knows the real thing until it really happens.
-------------------
Braden sez:If you think you can 'root' out a takedown attempt, with chinese stances or otherwise, you clearly haven't had anyone even moderately competent trying to take you down.
-----------------------------------------
How do you know that Braden?, In fact they have.
Much depends on the dynamics of what you are calling "root out".
The devil again is in the details.

[straightblast5]

Archangel,

"I am a little confused, if you throw only one leg back and your in bow stance the shooter will automatically attack the forward leg. If he has your leg, it's not over yet; you can still get a wizzer or a crossface but you could be taken down an any time. i don't see why this Bow stance would be advantageous to throwing both your legs back."

I apologize if my description was not clear. The structure I am referring to is merely used to stop your opponent's forward momentum before he/she can close onto your hips and/or your leg(s). You are meant to attack or move out of range once his/her drive is negated. If you stay static in this (or any other) position, your opponent will have time to consider his/her options (i.e. grabbing your front leg, switching to a rear tie-up, etc.). What I am suggesting is executed similar to a sprawl, but instead of kicking both your legs back and driving your chest onto your opponent’s back, you kick your hips and legs back into an arrow stance away from your charging opponent. Unlike the sprawl, your chest is not positioned over your opponent's back, for if you do so, your forward leg will be in range to be grabbed. Rather you are positioned in front of your opponent's head with your forearm wedged into the area between his neck and his shoulder to stop him from advancing any further. If he continues to drive forward, he would be driving his weight into your planted (back leg), thus stopping his momentum. To continue his attack your opponent must switch his drive toward another direction, thus giving you time to either strike or get out of range.

And you're right, if he has penetrated enough to have one of your legs but your weight is back (like in the structure that I am trying to describe) you can use a crossface. I'm not saying the option I gave is the end all of takedown defenses, but it's just another option, just as the sprawl. Fighting is dynamic, and if one does not take advantage of his/her position from a well-executed offense/defense, options will open up for your opponent (sprawl or otherwise).


Merry Prankster,

"That said, dropping back into a stance like that, one leg forward, one leg back, just gives me your forward leg. I don't have to change anything about my shot, I just turn the corner now, because I have a post around which to turn. "

I could do the same if I penetrated enough from my shoot to grab one of your legs when you sprawl, albeit harder than if you just gave me a leg to post from, but that wasn’t what I was suggesting. The movement that I suggested does not ask you to sit there inviting your opponent to grab your leg while trying to repel them with an unmovable stance. You need kick your legs and your hips back away from your opponent's reach just as with the sprawl, but rather than stopping their drive by pan-caking on top of them, you shoot your position back a little bit further so your chest is not over your opponent's back but in front of his/her head while you drive your forearm into the area between their neck an their shoulder to stop their forward drive. If you stay static in this position, or any position, I'm sure even the most novice of fighters will capitalize on other options (like posting on the forward leg to turn the corner into a rear tie-up). The option that I am suggesting is utilized to stop the drive long enough for you to attack or get out of range, much like kicking your legs back and pan-caking on top of your opponent is an option to do the same. If you can truly visualize what I am proposing and still believe that you can easily switch up on me, then great! Then you obviously must be smarter and more skilled than me or I am severely misguided. But I think the confusion stems from the fact that my suggested technique (like all techniques) is probably easier understood demonstrated than described.

"sb5--I ask with all sincerity, because I want to clarify what we are actually discussing. When you say you train takedowns, how do you mean that? Do you train with an opponent who shoots at your legs a lot? How good a wrestler is this opponent?"

Thanks for your sincerity. I teach kung fu and coach a sanshou team that regularly practices both takedowns (wrestling or otherwise) and takedown defenses including (but not limited to) the technique I had suggested and the sprawl.

I've trained with collegiate level wrestlers, BJJ blue belts, Shuai Jiao black belts, and Dan-Zan Ryu black belts. I thought they were good; I'm not sure how you would gauge their abilities though.

The purpose of my original post on this thread is just to let NorthernMantis know that a sprawl is different from "rooting" your stance. The option that I then stated is an option that I believed is just as valid as the sprawl (for stopping a tackle, single, or double) but was easier to relate to if you mainly practiced CMA.

I know how you “grappling gurus” like to pick apart what someone says if it appears to contradict what you practice (everyone is guilty of this… CMA, JKD, etc), but I am not trying to say what I suggested is better than a sprawl. What I suggested is merely an option. A valid one that I guess is hard to describe and validate without demonstration.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me the chance to discuss. This is actually one of the more intellectual discussions that I have participated in (as I haven’t posted on this forum as much as some of you).

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[Braden]

Yuan -
"How do you know that Braden?, In fact they have.
Much depends on the dynamics of what you are calling 'root out'.
The devil again is in the details."

Ok, then tell me. Someone attacks you with a combination of hooks and elbows, then drops, slamming his shoulder into you and keeping his head down, going for a single leg. You shift your weight to solidify against his attempts, he slides down with your shifting to press the hip joint of your leg while scooping up your ankle. How are you foiling this with a static posture? Let's even assume you are a Zen master and no amount of pain or shock can taint your concentration, and your kungfu stances are trained to perfection - you can root out a half dozen football quarterbacks shoving you with all their might. Even so, how do you foil this with a static posture?

[Archangel]

Hi straightblast,

I have a better idea of what your talking about now; thank you for the explanation. There are still a few things that do concern me.

"Rather you are positioned in front of your opponent's head with your forearm wedged into the area between his neck and his shoulder to stop him from advancing any further. If he continues to drive forward, he would be driving his weight into your planted (back leg), thus stopping his momentum"

Well not really, If you do manage to stop yourself from being driven back (by your rear planted leg), your forearm will most likely not stop him from closing right into you. Thus enabling him access to your forward leg or to a body lock. If your leg is in this bow position he now has a grip behind your knee or at your ankle, VERY VULNERABLE!!! If your were to do a full sprawl he'd at most have your quad, which doesn't nearly give him as much leverage as the former.

The only way I can see this being pulled off is instead of your forearm in the position you described, place it on the top of his head and drive it into the ground. Having the ground stop his momentum instead of your upper body.

"And you're right, if he has penetrated enough to have one of your legs but your weight is back (like in the structure that I am trying to describe) you can use a crossface"

Just remember though, that if the shooter has your leg and you are crossfacing he is going to stop driving and start pulling, to try to take you off balance. Be prepared to go to a wizzer quick. But I'm still wondering how this is technique is more advantageous to having both your legs back which gives him no access to any leg attacks at all.

[straightblast5]

Archangel,

"If you do manage to stop yourself from being driven back (by your rear planted leg), your forearm will most likely not stop him from closing right into you. Thus enabling him access to your forward leg or to a body lock."

You do not use only the strength of your arm. You structure yourself into a medium for transferring his kinetic energy into the ground through your planted leg. Therefore you are using not only your arm (though it is the contact point), but rather your whole body.

"If your leg is in this bow position he now has a grip behind your knee or at your ankle, VERY VULNERABLE!!! If your were to do a full sprawl he'd at most have your quad, which doesn't nearly give him as much leverage as the former."

As I have previously stated, the movement that I suggested does not ask you to sit there inviting your opponent to grab your leg while trying to repel them with an “unmovable” stance. You need kick your legs and your hips back away from your opponent's reach just as with the sprawl, but rather than stopping their drive by pan-caking on top of them, you shoot your position a little bit further back so your chest is not over your opponent's back but in front of his/her head while you drive your forearm into the neck/shoulder area to stop their forward drive.

"Just remember though, that if the shooter has your leg and you are crossfacing he is going to stop driving and start pulling, to try to take you off balance. Be prepared to go to a wizzer quick."

No different than what I have previously stated, fighting is dynamic, and if one does not take advantage of his/her position from a well-executed offense/defense, options will open up for your opponent (sprawl or otherwise).

"But I'm still wondering how this is technique is more advantageous to having both your legs back which gives him no access to any leg attacks at all.'

I never said that what I have suggested is more or less advantageous than a sprawl. It's merely another option that stops your opponent's drive while leaving you a bit more upright and still keeping your hips and legs far enough from your opponent for you to execute either attacks or a retreat. If done properly, your opponent shouldn't have access to your legs either. You are kicking your legs away from your opponent, while stopping their continuing drive towards your legs. The structure and approach is slightly different than the sprawl but the goal is the same. It’s just as I’ve said, it’s just another option (much like the sprawl) that I have found effective. But like any technique, it’s easier demonstrated than described.

Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[yuanfen]

Braden sez:Ok, then tell me. Someone attacks you with a combination of hooks and elbows, then drops, slamming his shoulder into you and keeping his head down, going for a single leg. You shift your weight to solidify against his attempts, he slides down with your shifting to press the hip joint of your leg while scooping up your ankle. How are you foiling this with a static posture?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Who sez anything about a static posture? Not me!
Your profile sez you have been learning bagua but doesnt say how long and from whom. I am not a bagua man. But bagua circling is not static. If you have a good sifu does he teach you to
primarily sprawl when some one is trying to get you down?
This is a kung fu list not rec.ma- where is your kung fu?
And if you have a person with good sumo background coming at you- you are going to sprawl on him? Good luck.

[NafAnal]

jeez doesn't anyone know the meaning of the word sarcasm?

ok folks:

sarcasm- n (use of) bitter remarks intended to wound the feelings; taunt taunt that is ironically worded.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, Archangel, sb5 is correct in his original statement.

The movement he describes is a "buckback," in wrestling, something I've used with great success, whether you call it dropping back into an arrow stance or what not, it's the same thing.

He uses the forearm to create a rigid structure that is very hard to penentrate. You maintain the one forward one back type stance and your body sort of glides back along with the follow through of the opponents shot, while you keep the structure of your stance.

Sorry sb5, I just didn't understand what you were talking about.

And it wasn't your comment about dealing with several different types of grapplers that convinced me either :) Just didn't have it clear in my head.

We wrestler types just consider it a variation of sprawling.

Yuan--appreciate your points. I just find it easier to sprawl and follow up with strikes once my base is secure

[yuanfen]

Merryprankster sez:Yuan--appreciate your points. I just find it easier to sprawl and follow up with strikes once my base is secure
------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I do understand that. People come from different backgrounds and a real serious fight witha competent person is an unpredictable affair and therefore
correlation of style, person, experience and skill and its relationship to strategy and tactics can vary. My argument is not against the sprawl but overgeneralization of its effectiveness for everyone.

[NorthernMantis]

All this "rooting" sh!t ain't gonna do you much good when a real wrestler attacks your legs

A real wrestler attacked my legs and I ade it out okay.This rooting is what kept me up all the time.Don't even think I don't know nothing about wrestlers becuase a lot of my frend are highschool wrestlers.I will be fighting back did you forget that part?It's one thing to attack the legs ofa an unresisting oponent than a resisitng one.

You seem to be mistaken here.I'm not going to drop into a foward stance and just stand there like an idiot.That's what my hands are for to guard my body.If he goes lower the lower I go and don't give me that it's not possible lecture becuse I can go really low and figth from that psition..Not to brag about it but ask my si hing.Plus I'm very mobile with my low stances so moving away in that position is not a problem.

[rogue]

Has anybody mentioned dropping your stance height down to the same level as the grapplers? I've only been working on this with a judoka friend but I've found that this is one move that helps keep him from shooting in so easily. As long as he has to go past my arms I'm able to keep him from getting my legs or waist, but then he usually moves onto something else and takes me down anyway. But It does take him longer.

Mobility is better than rooting.

[straightblast5]

Merry Prankster,

"Sorry sb5, I just didn't understand what you were talking about."

That's okay, misunderstandings will often arise when words are used to replace actions. Or like I said, techniques are easier demonstrated than described.

"And it wasn't your comment about dealing with several different types of grapplers that convinced me either :) Just didn't have it clear in my head."

Hey, you asked...:)


Phil
Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association (http://www.ngfamilymartialarts.com)

[LEGEND]

???

[truewrestler]

MerryPrankster, I envy you. How the heck do you show so much restraint on this board?

In my opinion "rooting yourself" is similar to having "good hips" in wrestling. "good hips" can only be developed through years of practice and competition. It is absolutely not "a stance" and can not be developed without learning to sprawl.

I was taught that basic take down defenses come in this order.

1. stance - in NHB or fighting this might not be practical but as someone mentionned, you can lower your level as they lower their level and shoot but this is not something learned over night

2. hands and forearms - use you hands and forearms to stop their forward momentum and scoot your hips/legs away from their reach. This also includes underhooking the arms they are reaching with if they get in deep.

3. sprawl - if your opponent gets under your stance and past your hands, drop your hips, your feet going backwards, and put your weight on your opponent's neck/back. The most important part is to learn how to use your hips as a lever to break their hands away from or off your legs. Pop your hips and push down on your opponent's head and slide your feet/legs back until you are out of danger. Now you can knee, stand up and kick, or circle behind your opponent now face down on the ground or on his knees. Someone with ground skills will try to go to guard first or do something before you can.

4. Wh!zzer/crossface - if you opponent was able to secure a leg then you want to counter that hold using the basic wh!zzer (which i'm not going to explain right now) or a cross face. Of course if his hands locked you will have trouble than if unlocked.

I hope I made you proud MP. I didn't yell, cuss or laugh at anyone. :D

[truewrestler]

lol, i can't say Whi_z, i'll have to go back and edit

[rogue]

Whhizzer Link (http://www.themat.com/pressbox/pressdetail.asp?aid=2131)

More whhizzer (http://www.catchwrestle.com/catchtipsarchive.htm)

[truewrestler]

awesome, i could have sworn they both ended up rolling forward but maybe it was a little later

I can't paste the link because it has wh!zzer in it but this is cool

http://www.themat.com/ted/wh!zzer/distance.gif

Les Gutches Techniques http://www.lesgutches.com/

[Braden]

Yuan - I never suggested the sprawl. I suggested the golden rules of a) getting out of the way, and b) controlling your opponent, along with c) a technique of any sort. A sprawl is simply one way of doing this. Of course there are several from bagua. This is the same recommendation I have heard from every bagua teacher I trust.

I allready said this in this thread though; I guess you missed it.

[Merryprankster]

Wellllll..

tw, you asked, here's my response.

I don't know anything about Kung Fu. No reason to deride them for what they believe to be effective. Maybe they find it effective. If it works who am I to judge. Nobody here has anything to gain by lying on the forum, so I just assume that obvious garbage aside, everybody is telling the truth.

I don't always agree or have the same training philosophy, but so what. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things. The only times I get upset are when:

People talk about some sort of mystical depth to TMA's of any sort as though there is "more," to be found in them. Any art is what you make of it. You can have a superficial understanding or an in depth understanding. Your choice, not the arts'.

People discuss "well, I'm not training for the ring and in a streetfight this move would work because most people don't train." Ummm... we don't train to beat half-drunk frat boys. We train so we can handle encounters. I hope the encounter doesn't involve a sober, angry-at-you trained fighter of some kind, and you've spent your days practicing the defense to a "roundhouse," style punch vice a nice tight hook. Train as though you were going to encounter somebody trained. If you can defend the hook, you can defend the roundhouse swipe. If you can defend a shot, you can defend the head down big guy tackle.... but don't think it works in reverse.

People say "oh, well, you'll get bootstomped on the ground." Yeah, but thanks to my mat time, I will get bootstomped a lot LESS than you! :)

Lastly I get ****y when people talk about "dirty tricks," as fight enders... especially w/regards to groundfighting. Useful? Of course. But if you are attempting them from a position of disadvantage, I can assure you that I would make you pay for it and you'd better not hope that's all you've got.

I don't get upset just kneeing and elbowing as a defense to the takedown, because that's just dumb :)

It's a bit like when gracie jock riders insist that Helio added a new system of leverages to Judo newaza to make it take less energy and be more effective--no he didn't. He just practiced on the ground more and figured out some cool stuff while he was there. He didn't copyright leverage... all grappling stuff has it. He was just on the ground more often and so he got very good at it, yah?

Good response, by the way. I think your "layers of defense" description is dead on.

Ken Shamrock lowered his level with Fujita to block the shot, similar to a buckback, before he *****ed out.

[Braden]

MP - Don't attribute some people's delusions to every TMAist. ;)

[Merryprankster]

Hey, I don't

I just get irritated with the ones that think the way I outlined. :)

[truewrestler]

what specifically are you calling a buckback? Ken dropping to Fujita's level and meeting him during the shot? Not familiar with that term.

everyone take a look at the video clips on this page, specifically the one under "Tape 5. Defending Against Takedowns Part 1". It explains the defense to a low single and the end explains a little about the finish to a sprawl.

http://www.groundfighter.com/ultimatetakedowns.html

http://www.groundfighter.com/VIDEO/RAW5.ram

[truewrestler]

if anyone wants to see a wrestling tournament and how hard it is to take someone down with skills(even if you have some yourself) here is hours and hours of video from a college tournament in Reno about a week ago. Actually it is video of all 4 mats or so at the tournament probably adding up to well over 20 or 30 hours.

http://www.livesportsvideo.com/events/rtoc2001/main.html

really nice to see this stuff online because it is never shown on TV unless you live in PA, OK, or IA =)

[Merryprankster]

Fujita, because his shot is, technically speaking, lousy, never really got low enough for Ken to execute a true buckback. Ken kinda goes more with the lowering level, almost kinda sorta underhooking him and then pounding on his face.

Think of a sprawl, but instead of putting your weight ON him so much, you create more of a rigid structure with your fore-arm or arm, kinda stiff arming the opponent while you change levels with him. You ARE sprawling, but you just surt of glide back with it... or buck back, hence the term buck back.

[truewrestler]

i know what you mean, now I have a name for it =) what I remember is Ken lowering his level to his knees and catching double underhooks then going back slightly with the momentum. I'll watch it tomorrow.

what Fujita wasn't doing was any type of setup or clinch. each time there was a clinch though, Ken got the better of him. It seemed like a big part of Ken's strategy going into the fight was the buck back(woohoo, new word) so maybe he saw something in Fujita's previous fights.

good night!!!!! I'm tired!! you work crazy hours don't you MP...up all night? watch that Reno event above =)

[Archangel]

Can you believe I've never tried that, not even in practice; I've always been most comfortable sprawling. I'll give it a try though prankster.

[Merryprankster]

Exactly tw,

Now, take the underhooks away and use something that looks more like the collar tie and you've got the buck back.

I like it because it gives the opportunity for a quick snap down front headlock/guillotine, buttdrag/go behind type combo.

[truewrestler]

EXACTLY!! I used to go right into the front headlock series right from there or even an armdrag if they give it to me first.

Archangel, you have probably done it without knowing a name for it. If you have a collar tie and someone tries to shoot maybe a double without clearing your tie up first. You keep your forearm on their collarbone, let your feet out under you which in turn lowers your level and lets your opponent push you back while you are in the air until his momentum is gone and you land on your knees. I hope that made sense.

[rogue]

I think I've been doing a buckback and didn't know it, now I just need to learn some finishing moves.

[truewrestler]

Ghetto choke anyone? :D

http://www.lewisjiujitsu.com/images/gallery/fights_gq-guilliotine.jpg

[Merryprankster]

Or you can stay on your feet and snap-down the hell out of them :)

I like that one personally :)

[old jong]

I am a little late on this one but I have to say that I appreciate the value of the sprawll. I think it is the best way to react to a take down attempt. There is no discussion possible,it works! I like to do it in two basic ways: One in witch I stop the guy at the shoulder or head and keep him away without putting my weight on him and the other with the weight if he manages to get past my arms. I also may use the guillotine or the crucifix depending on the situation. I think it is only adjusting to the reality of today to learn and practice those things....Even if I'm a Wing Chun guy!;)