Anti-striking

[YouKnowWho]

realistic drills

If you try to develop your "under hook" skill, during training, if your opponent just raises his arm straight up in the air, you will never be able to get any "under hook" on him. You can train with him like this for 10 years, you will not be able to develop your "under hook" skill in those 10 years. Your opponent is not helping you. He is hurting your MA development.

[intercept8]

So how much commitment is the right amount?

I do not understand you completely. But, here is my opinion. Taking the Akiyama vs Shields clip for example.

It is my job to set a trap, so that you will commit and throw a right cross. I have to throw my jab at the right speed (slow enough, chin exposed) and distance for you to throw a right cross. It is my job to entice you. Make you bite. It may take me more than one time for you to bite. The first time I throw a lazy jab you might move and keep your guard up. There is no opportunity (not close enough) for me to get the under hook.

So, I repeat my lazy jab (slow, chin exposed), until you throw the right cross. Hopefully, my slow jab is also setting the pace. So, that the opponent counters with a slow (or slower) right cross. When you throw the right cross, I am ready (waiting) to get my under hook in and complete my throw.

Here is a drill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ7C7AoFJMY

The important point in the drill is to have the opponent throw the punch and retract it at normal, realistic speed. This way I can develop the correct timing. If the opponent keeps his punch out in the air (doesn’t retract it) in the drill, I will develop a false sense of security and not develop any timing skill. My lazy jab (slow, chin exposed) lulls the opponent to commit and throw the right cross. Then, I quickly change the speed (rhythm) to fast and get my under hook in.

[intercept8]

realistic drills

If you try to develop your "under hook" skill, during training, if your opponent just raises his arm straight up in the air, you will never be able to get any "under hook" on him.

I don't understand. I never said have the opponent raise his arm straight up in the air. I am into realistic reaction drills, not unrealistic.

The important point in the drill is to have the opponent throw the punch and retract it at normal, realistic speed. This way I can develop the correct timing. If the opponent keeps his punch out in the air (doesn’t retract it) in the drill, I will develop a false sense of security and not develop any timing skill. My lazy jab (slow, chin exposed) lulls the opponent to commit and throw the right cross. Then, I quickly change the speed (rhythm) to fast and get my under hook in.

The clips I showed is a real competition, nothing fake. Here is another throw, with the similar entry. Akiyama is carrying his hands low, leaving chin exposed to set trap, draw attention or attack. Akiyama draws Shields' attention high with sleight feint, then completes the low leg reap or throw. (I think all the examples I have given, started offensively not waiting for the opponent.):





IMHO, you can analyze the clip. Then, create a realistic drill. It seems to me that Akiyama is slowly taking three small steps forward (creating a slow pace) with hands carried low, leaving chin exposed (setting trap, draw attention or attack) and Shields is taking two slow small steps backwards. Then, Shields seems to be stopping and taking a tiny step forward with his lead foot, wanting to set and start an offense. But before Shields can set and launch an offense, Akiyama feints high with left hand (Shields reacts by leaning back, weight shifted to back foot, and lifting front foot in the air. Shields is unbalanced, momentum falling backwards.). Then, Akiyama quickly pendulum steps and completes the low, leg reap throw.

This is the timing. I want to use my peripheral vision and watch for the opponent to take the tiny step forward. Then, I high feint with left hand (unbalancing opponent), pendulum step and attack with low, leg reap throw. I want to drill and spar to practice setting the trap, setting the pace (slow, then fast), timing, distance, position and throw. Adjustments can be made as needed.

IMHO, I like to see what’s working for high level, professional fighters in a hostile environment. I like to leverage their training, trainers, techniques (pressure tested), strategies and experience (years of sparring and professional matches). I like to learn what their game plan is (if any) and how they set their traps. I want to learn and see if there is anything that I can use or adapt to my own personal self-defense. Not all techniques will work in the street. Also, physical build and ability may not be the same as the professional. So, I have to use, adapt and throw out what's not useful for me. But, I still might learn something from it.

[YouKnowWho]

The clips I showed is a real competition, ... I don't understand. I never said have the opponent raise his arm straight up in the air. I am into realistic reaction drills, not unrealistic.

I think we are missing each other here. Your clips are "sparring clips" and not "training clip". You are talking about

- "sparring/wrestling (testing stage) - you don't know what your opponent is going to do to you", and not
- "partner drills (developing stage) - you know exactly what your opponent is going to do to you" here.

The "sparring/wrestling (testing stage)" is after the "partner drills (developing stage)". You have first develop your skill before you can test it.

We may have different definition about the word "realistic" here. My definition of "realistic" is "to use the right counter to deal with the right attack". If you try to use "under hook" on your opponent, he will raise his arm straight up in the air to "escape" out of your "under arm". To me, that's the most realistic respond your opponent should do at the particular moment.

[Faux Newbie]

- "partner drills", your opponent will do whatever that will fit your need (such as full commitment on the 1st, or fake the 1st and commit on the 2nd).

I think for training, this is the approach to commitment that yields results for more open (fighting and sparring) skill.

By drilling the technique with partners working variations that they agree on, it's like inoculating against disease, they are exposed to the contexts in training all the time, and when it comes up in a live situation, they don't necessarily make up their response right there, they've trained it. So I agree with you totally.

As far as committing on strikes, I'm more saying that gloves have a place, they don't have to be used all the time, they are a tool for one use.

Without gloves, if a partner is throwing strikes like they would when they try to hit someone, the occasion where, in the drill, the person working a technique against that punch doesn't do it perfectly (this is practice, after all) is really going to get punched, especially if their partner is an equal, especially if the partners are skilled. It will be a bare knuckle punch, and it will sometimes cause damage.

If these techniques are drilled all the time this way, then we should assume that they are constantly having their cheeks broken, noses broken, etc, or we should assume that the striker is not as skilled.

That this doesn't happen is not because people may lack skill at striking, but because people without gloves in training really don't punch the way they would if they were trying to effectively hit a target, they do something very different, which is a tendency to punch at the surface and not seek penetration. The punch may be fine, except in how it relates to the target. Training this way can lead to defending strikes that mean nothing, cannot hurt me.

There is a stage where this is adequate, but sometimes, I think it is important to drill against a more committed strike, and heavy gloves (NOT competition gloves, which are intended to allow knock outs) are a perfect tool for this.

Of course, some things, gloves prevent, and one must avoid defenses that only work because the glove is so large, just as one wouldn't fight a moving opponent as though they are a wooden dummy. Gloves are a good tool, nothing more. There's every reason to use them at times, especially if developing approaches to counter striking, in my opinion.

[Faux Newbie]

The only problem is sometime when I respond and give my opinion to other's suggestion, it may look like I try to "shoot down" other's suggestion (people in another forum already have such complain). Since I start this thread and try to collect as many comments as I can, I like to put myself in "listen" mode unless my opinion is requested by individual poster.

I get this. I was trying to clarify that I'm playing devil's advocate, normally, if you are talking about throws, I'm in listening mode.

[intercept8]

I think we are missing each other here. Your clips are "sparring clips" and not "training clip".

I posted the same partner drill link multiple times (see post #47 above). This is the partner drill for the under hook throw:

This is a training clip. The partner drill is realistic enough, IMO. Two people work together to develop skills. You both know what each other are going to do. But, you can also move around a little. A realistic drill does not have to be full contact, power or speed.

An unrealistic drill is when someone throws a punch, leaves his arm out stuck in the air for too long (does not retract) or doesn't move around naturally.

If you try to use "under hook" on your opponent, he will raise his arm straight up in the air to "escape" out of your "under arm". To me, that's the most realistic respond your opponent should do at the particular moment.

If I understand you correctly, you believe the under hook throw practice drill and clip Akiyama performs is unrealistic. Because, the opponent can easily escape. However, the clips are from a professional match, UFC 144. They get paid to fight and beat each other. The under hook throw worked successfully here, no escape. The other throw was not an under hook throw. But, it was also successful. One throw the opponent’s momentum was going forwards. The other throw opponent’s momentum was going backwards. In Akiyama's mind he scored the points for a successful throw, that's what was important to him.

When showing the clips, I am not focusing on the final throw itself. Both throws start at a kicking or punching range transitioning to the grappling range. Both throws start with offense, not waiting for the opponent. This is the part I was focusing on. I am not advocating any particular throw (e.g., under hook). I am advocating the setup, entry, pace, feints, varying speeds, traps, distance timing, position, unbalancing, etc . . . leading up to the throw.

Once you have the opponent with all his weight on his back foot, front foot off the ground and momentum going backwards, you might be able to do a different throw or another attack. IMHO, I think all the skills (setting the trap, timing, distance, etc . . .) leading up to getting your opponent unbalanced are transferable to other throws. You can use the same skills with different throws. These skills are worth shadow boxing, drilling, practicing, sparring, and using in real fights.

[Faux Newbie]

I don't think anyone is suggesting leaving the punch out.

I also think one of the points is that, in drilling something, if your partner is working neutralizing what you are trying to drill, it defeats the purpose.

That aside, I think most would agree that, in drilling, simple footwork by the partner that makes it so that the person drilling the technique has the ability to adjust and still do the technique is good. Footwork designed to foil the technique screw up the drill, so obviously things like disengaging continuously on a drill is not helpful.

Feints by the practitioner or their partner should only initially be involved when drilling that technique with feints, after drilling it a good amount without, imo. Only after both steps do I find it useful to have feints in the general drill.

One thing I've been thinking about with the big hands strategy is the idea of giving the appearance of dedicating to striking, so that the intent to seek bridging is hidden. I kind of like this idea, especially with an opponent you don't know.

I guess this would be the way I would work on techs goes this way:

Step 1: The person providing the target for the technique being drilled uses basic shuffle steps, seeking to attain the angle opening that the strike he or she is supposed to be providing works well at, while the practitioner drills the technique. The attacker is only using basic footwork to create the opening, no feints, the person practicing the drill uses no draws. This way, the strike is more realistic (not striking toward a closed defense) and the application is more difficult (because the defender cannot draw the response they want).

Step 2: The defender can use draws.

Step 3: The attacker can feint

Step 4: All of the above

This avoids the following pitfalls:

Pitfall 1: The defender is weak on the technique, but because the attacker is always coming straight in, they can always hold a strong defense and have that advantage.

Pitfall 2: The defender is weak on the technique, but because they are good at the draw, they can make do.

Pitfall 3: The defender is good on the technique, but overconfident in it, and so does not take advantage of drawing responses from the attacker to make the opportunity.

Pitfall 4: The defender is good on the draw and the technique, but susceptible to feints.

I also like to do either/or drills AFTER the above sort of drilling is strong, so that, if I were trying to work YKW's program so that I could do it well, I would then make drills that force either big hands or spear hands, with the attacker selecting either one mode of attack that is common and is defended well by big hands, or one that is common and is well defended by spear hands. That way, choosing on the fly is worked on. I do this a lot with high and low, where the attacker can jab or low line lead leg kick, that way I don't get tunnel vision, I have to look for attack from various directions. In the case of throwing, I think it's more complex, but still doable.

I've been messing around with the big hands in drills, not to do without striking (I like striking and have long reach), but as a type of entry (there are others I work). I'm going to meet with a group of friends soon to test things I've been working on, I'm thinking this is going to work well. I tend to slip toward the rear quadrants to force my opponent to reach or go for my lead leg or my legs, I think with that, an approach like the big draw will work well as a more forward driving technique. As I got examining it, it and spear hands relate closely to two of the most represented of what are called the Eight Hands of the style I do.

It's funny that you mention raising the arm in relation to the underhook. There's a technique I do a ton that relates to that.

[Faux Newbie]

I think one of the things being missed here is developing drills off of YKW's repertoire is the point not Akiyama's. there will be overlap, of course, but it is YKW's techs that he is ultimately working on conveying.

[YouKnowWho]

I guess this would be the way I would work on techs goes this way:

Step 1: The person providing the target for the technique being drilled uses basic shuffle steps, seeking to attain the angle opening that the strike he or she is supposed to be providing works well at, while the practitioner drills the technique. The attacker is only using basic footwork to create the opening, no feints, the person practicing the drill uses no draws. This way, the strike is more realistic (not striking toward a closed defense) and the application is more difficult (because the defender cannot draw the response they want).

Step 2: The defender can use draws.

Step 3: The attacker can feint

Step 4: All of the above.

If your opponent attacks with

- full force, you can borrow his commitment.
- partial force and change, you can borrow his change.

Both are good training.

[intercept8]

Faux Newbie,

Do I understand your Step 1, correctly? Big Fist is the grappler. He initiates by punching with a fully committed “big fist.” Opponent will counter the “big fist.”

Is the opponent a MMA or strictly striker? If opponent is a MMA, he might counter with kicks, punches, takedowns or throws. If he is strictly a striker, he will tend to retract punches and not try to wrestle.

(because the defender cannot draw the response they want).

I am confused on this part. Can Big Fist choose to strike low or high? Can Big Fist choose to carry the “big fist” guard low or high? If so, that may draw a different counter from opponent.

Big Fist and opponent will start with guards up, starting from a kicking or punching range, not a grappling range. Big Fist is in a southpaw stance. Assuming most strikers are orthodox, I would have opponent stand in orthodox stance (left hand forward).

I think one of the things being missed here is developing drills off of YKW's repertoire is the point not Akiyama's.

Got it.

[Faux Newbie]

If your opponent attacks with

- full force, you can borrow his commitment.
- partial force and change, you can borrow his change.

Both are good training.

Interesting! I hadn't really thought of the second part. Nice...

[Faux Newbie]

Faux Newbie,

Do I understand your Step 1, correctly? Big Fist is the grappler. He initiates by punching with a fully committed “big fist.” Opponent will counter the “big fist.”

No. The one using big fist, the grappler, is more responding. His partner is using strikes, initially hand strikes. Later, strikes are added in, but since the big fist is more focused on against hand strikes, that would seem to be the focus, footwork against kicks, big hands against strikes, if I understand correctly.

Is the opponent a MMA or strictly striker? If opponent is a MMA, he might counter with kicks, punches, takedowns or throws. If he is strictly a striker, he will tend to retract punches and not try to wrestle.

At the outset, training partners in mma also don't just counter what their partner is working on. So at the outset, it is against specific things, strikes, then trained with more complexity. Also, even even grapplers retract strikes unless the strike is also a throw/takedown, as far as I know.

I am confused on this part. Can Big Fist choose to strike low or high? Can Big Fist choose to carry the “big fist” guard low or high? If so, that may draw a different counter from opponent.

Again, countering in drills is used way past the initial phases in mma. In short, people work the move to be countered before they work its counters, otherwise they don't even understand what they are countering. I'm talking about drilling big fist and things like it. I suppose you could look at it as a counter to a strike that is grappling, but in training it initially, allowing counters, as YKW pointed out, basically puts the person trying to drill a technique in a place where their opponent is doing counters knowing that they are going to do that technique. They will end up with a crap counter, because they will be working it against someone who is not being allowed time to hone the tech they are trying to counter.

Big Fist and opponent will start with guards up, starting from a kicking or punching range, not a grappling range. Big Fist is in a southpaw stance. Assuming most strikers are orthodox, I would have opponent stand in orthodox stance (left hand forward).

Most kung fu people are southpaw, because in close, the usual argument (strongest hand in rear) doesn't hold the same weight. In close, the lead hand cannot strike without the rear hand opening the way in many cases, and the lead hand has more penetration. Since kung fu seeks to end up in and out of different ranges, the loss of power at the outside range is worth it. Also, not letting people choose their favored stance makes a bunch of people who can't fight against southpaws well, or against orthodox's well, imo, so I let people take their position, but from there, they should hold that approach more than its opposite in striking. None of this applies to throwing and takedowns, as they need to work from every relative stance, imo.


Got it. [/QUOTE]

[Faux Newbie]

I think, accepting the logic that YKW is trying to work with, I should make it clear that I am viewing the one doing big hands as not striking during the drills. When I describe how this may influence my drills, I am including me striking. Just trying to make myself clear.

[intercept8]

Faux Newbie,

Thanks. I just wanted to be clear on how you were setting up your drill.

I was a little confused from YKW’s comments. The drill showed opponent striking, first. But, the comments he made seem to show he likes to punch (initiate) first to engage opponent. (Although, he said he starts drills both ways; initiating and defending.)

Post #1 - Move in toward your opponent and try to use your big fist to hit on his face.

Post #35 - That's a valid concern.

The only problem is if you let your opponent to attack your first, you may put too much training dependency on your opponent. Your opponent can attack you in infinite number of ways. You just can't simulate all the situations. In my personal training, I like to attack first.