Quote:
Originally posted by MantisifuFW
Greetings,
I have enjoyed this topic both because of the subject under consideration, (takedowns of any kind), and for the construction of the argument presented by it's originator.
Please understand, I was teaching throwing and Dae Tong, (Chinese Groundfighting), twenty years ago when karateka and thai boxers laughed at me so I am a fan and an advocate of exactly the kinds of tactics under consideration and fully endorse their effectiveness in the right setting. So, my comments are not intended to disparage anyone on any side of this discussion.
a) The argument has been framed that the grappler has gotten into prefect position for the takedown without the Tanglang practitioner being able to even take a step. At the same time the presenter says that the grappler is not held by the same rules, to quote:
"Also, no multiple move techniques which require the attacker to stand by idly while you work him over". Exactly what the presented arguement requires the Tanglang practitioner to do.
b) The argument continues that the Tanglang practitioner cannot talk about the difficulty of getting someone into this perfect takedown position, ala Shamrock punching Gracie (the ultimate grappler in his day), in the eye with a single clumsy and arguably weak punch that nonetheless reduced the grappling legend to clinging ineffectively to his opponent for the rest of the match and thanking god the Shamrock did not continue the pummeling with close range strikes.
c) Notwithstanding the proven effectiveness of such a single even poorly executed strike the arguement comes to the conclusion the originator had in mind in the beginning concerning the effectiveness of whatever strikes the Tanglang practitioner would make. :
"Any striking, of which you would only get one at best, still will probably not prevent the "sacrifice" throw to the ground... "
Now to my response to the technique:
It is an excellent takedown and one that I teach but is not the best version of it from a tactical point of view. It requires that I pin both arms, get my head braced into the back and block his ankle before I effect my throw. The perfect timing and effort required for this to work is far too difficult against a good fighter.
When I have used similar takedowns I did not even pin the arms. The takedown does not require this to be effective. I just get my arms around the waist of the opponent as I slip beneath his punch for example, hide my head for a split second in the small of the other's back and use my forward leg to block both of his heels as I fall to the ground and moved immediately into finishing techniques, (either choke, dislocation or striking).
This question being set forth here could be done with any throw or takedown and could be asked, "If an opponent is:
1. able to move into perfect position to effect a throwing technique (insert any kind) and...
2. has stabilized his position to the degree necessary for his technique to work well,...
3. has either effectively blocked the opponent's ability to maneuver, (or has already broken the opponent's balance)...
4. and done everything possible to minimize his vulnerablity to counters,...
can he be defeated?"
Provision 1:
Oh, also in the split second left to the opponent has to strike from a disadvantaged position, we assume already that it will not be effective.
Just in case though, as further help for the grappler...
Provision 2:
Also, you cannot fight from the ground even if you both fall down because the grappler slips on a bananna peal that he did not see at the ATM, falls before he is ready and hits his head on the concrete because he will also fall perfectly and not be injured even if he weighs 120lbs and the person that falls on top of him is a muscular 240lbs because he will finish the monster with "excellent groundwork".
The question is does a correctly executed takedown work?
The answer is, yes.
Most techniques of real martial systems can work if they are set up properly.
A great topic soundofwater. I look forward to more technical discussions!
Steve Cottrell