It really is the system.

[JowGaWolf]

I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer. What is the general problem for striking arts ? That we have no way to knock someone down ?

I think he switched gears on us. When I read what he was saying the first time. I was applying it to one of the videos. But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly. I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.

When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying. If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing". The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that. If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.

Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again

This is how the fight ended and it started with this.

Different guy Same problem.

1st lesson isn't to learn how to fight on the ground. It's to learn how to not put yourself in this position. Until a student gets this part right, there's just no purpose of letting things play out. I already know how it's going to end.

At this point, just acknowledge, that your partner has gotten the best of you and that he /she made you pay dearly for that mistake.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sparring is about learning. Light contact sparring requires that we be honest with ourselves if we want to learn.

lol. I skimmed through your comments saw this and agree with everything before it. Still don't know what you said. This should be on the both sides of the main door of every TMA school.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not really sure I am following your train of thought any longer. What is the general problem for striking arts ? That we have no way to knock someone down ?

John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.

I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.

 

[dvcochran]

I think he switched gears on us. When I read what he was saying the first time. I was applying it to one of the videos. But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly. I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.

When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying. If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing". The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that. If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.

Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again

View attachment 23702

This is how the fight ended and it started with this.

Different guy Same problem.

1st lesson isn't to learn how to fight on the ground. It's to learn how to not put yourself in this position. Until a student gets this part right, there's just no purpose of letting things play out. I already know how it's going to end.
View attachment 23703

At this point, just acknowledge, that your partner has gotten the best of you and that he /she made you pay dearly for that mistake.
View attachment 23704

I agree in part. Especially when padded up the contact should at least be enough to make the opponent consider it and adjust because of it. This should be consensual and agreed upon up front.
If not the sparring is a waste of time. One big exception is when drilling counters and what not which is often done at lower speeds and contact.

 

[Yokozuna514]

A: How many people have you taken down so far?
B: I have taken down about N guys.
A: Can you still take people down today?
B: I believe I can.
A: How many people have you knocked down so far?
B: ...
A: Can you still knock people down today?
B: ...

I may be missing something here. When you say knocked down can you elaborate what that means to you ?

I train in Kyokushin so I train knockdown all the time. It is fairly understood that when a shot slips in damage can occur. If you tap me in the floating ribs or in the solar plexus, I know that can make for a bad day for me. Similarly if I let a kicks slip in without checking them but that comes from experience with sparring at a higher level and understanding what it feels like to get a clean shot at an exposed target.

I think he switched gears on us. When I read what he was saying the first time. I was applying it to one of the videos. But then when I just take what he says without any reference to any of the videos then it made sense, which is why I stated that I read his comment incorrectly. I'm thinking 1 thing and he's thinking another.

When he says that a fight should end when someone gets hit in the face, then it's similar to what we have been saying. If a striker taps someone on the face with a nice solid but not hard punch, then the grappler shouldn't act as "if it wasn't nothing". The grappler should acknowledge that he got hit solid without addressing the punch. From a training perspective a grappler should be concern with stuff like that. If he can't avoid the slow stuff, then it's not likely he can afford to make the same mistake if someone is punching hard.

Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again

View attachment 23702

This is how the fight ended and it started with this.

Different guy Same problem.

1st lesson isn't to learn how to fight on the ground. It's to learn how to not put yourself in this position. Until a student gets this part right, there's just no purpose of letting things play out. I already know how it's going to end.
View attachment 23703

At this point, just acknowledge, that your partner has gotten the best of you and that he /she made you pay dearly for that mistake.
View attachment 23704

John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.

I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.

Thanks for the clarification and it seems as if you know Kung Fu Wang's style of writing better than I do. Cheers !

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I may be missing something here. When you say knocked down can you elaborate what that means to you ?

Knock down = You knock your opponent down on the ground. He may be able to get back up, or he may not.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Knock down = You knock your opponent down on the ground. He may be able to get back up, or he may not.

Perhaps I am missing the context of your statement. I have knocked many people down but I hope they always get back up in training. In training we don't necessarily want people to get injured so we train with pads. When we are sparring, even when we are going 100%, we aren't trying to injure our opponent. Show them holes in their game yes. Give them a painful memory if they miss a check but we want people to continue to train and learn at a pace that will not discourage them from participating.

At a tournament, we may also go 100% and try to knock our opponent out but then again they are trying to do the same to me. The more tournaments you enter the more realistic opportunities you have to test your training but knocking someone out is not something that the crowd necessarily cheers. We are all amateurs so knockouts (even though that is the point of Knockdown) are considered with a certain gravity and respect. We sincerely care for the wellbeing of our opponent because we understand that we could also be in that same position.

This is the context I am responding to you. If you are speaking about another context, feel free to let me know.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When we are sparring, even when we are going 100%, we aren't trying to injure our opponent.

This may need some clarification 100% in what? For me if I go 100% then people are going to get hurt regardless of any effort that I put forth to prevent injuries. The faster the pace, the faster I must move, and in some cases, I would have to use more force. If I want to stop my opponent's attack then I have to apply stopping power in my punches and kicks.

Compare the faces of boxer when sparring vs Boxers when they are fighting. It's clear to see what 100% means and the effects of it. I know I don't want to be laid out in practice with injuries that make me look like I've been in s street fight.

I'm not clear on what is being defined as 100%

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Perhaps I am missing the context of your statement. I have knocked many people down but I hope they always get back up in training.

You are talking about sparring as a training in your own school. I'm talking about tournament that you fight against a total stranger.

we aren't trying to injure our opponent.

If you throw a 100% power roundhouse kick and your opponent blocks with his arm, one of you will get hurt no matter you like it or not.

 

[Yokozuna514]

This may need some clarification 100% in what? For me if I go 100% then people are going to get hurt regardless of any effort that I put forth to prevent injuries. The faster the pace, the faster I must move, and in some cases, I would have to use more force. If I want to stop my opponent's attack then I have to apply stopping power in my punches and kicks.

Compare the faces of boxer when sparring vs Boxers when they are fighting. It's clear to see what 100% means and the effects of it. I know I don't want to be laid out in practice with injuries that take make me look like I've been in s street fight.

I'm not clear on what is being defined as 100%

I was under the impression when I joined this thread that we were speaking about 100% power. I was responding to a comment from Kung Fu Wang that a striker should ALWAYS use 100% on his first punch/kick. I have been trying to understand the context of that comment since day 1 since I found it an interesting comment to make that would not necessarily fit the context I was thinking (ie: training in a hall/dojo).

The chances of someone getting hurt when you go 100% certainly becomes more likely and unless you train going 100% in a safe manner that you can repeatedly do say against a pad. More than likely, the more you train at 100% power, the less chance you will have to injure yourself.

So to reiterate, I was speaking about 100% power of shots not 100% capability to cause destruction. I am not sure who trains in that manner but it doesn't seem likely to me that the lineup to go 100%, risking life and limb every time you go to train, will be very long.

You are talking about sparring as a training in your own school. I'm talking about tournament that you fight against a stranger.

I don't do many tournaments where I face a stranger that is essentially a grappler. That is more in the arena of MMA and not knockdown. However, if I was to enter in that type of tournament, I would certainly take some training in grappling so that I give myself options instead of relying on just striking to answer anything my opponent would do.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't do many tournaments where I face a stranger that is essentially a grappler. That is more in the arena of MMA and not knockdown. However, if I was to enter in that type of tournament, I would certainly take some training in grappling so that I give myself options instead of relying on just striking to answer anything my opponent would do.

If you just try to compete in the golden gloves boxing, you will understand what I'm trying to say. Everybody you may have to fight, they all look like those guys who attacked the capital in 1/6.

You may not try to hurt your opponent, but you opponent will try to hurt you, and they will enjoy very much by doing so.

 

[Yokozuna514]

If you just try to compete in the golden gloves boxing, you will understand what I'm trying to say. Everybody you may have to fight, they all look like those guys who attack the capital in 1/6.

You may not try to hurt your opponent, but you opponent will try to hurt you, and they will enjoy very much by doing so.

If you do a google search on knockdown karate, you will find many examples of what I am talking about. In tournaments, we do tend to go 100% but not always on the first shot. You need to consider range and entering strategies. In knockdown we also tend to face more than one opponent in a given day so we also tend to pace ourselves accordingly and only go for a 100% shot when we see an opening. All the shots that lead up to that one may be at varying strengths to disguise the real target. That is knockdown though and essentially it is a sport.

It seems like you are speaking about something else which I may not have very much to add because I am not really trying to hurt anyone. As Daniel-san said in the Karate Kid, I train so I don't have to fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In tournaments, we do tend to go 100% but not always on the first shot.

It's a mental game. If your opponent can feel your power in your initial 3 punches/kicks, after that, you can just move your arm/leg, your opponent will back up. After your opponent has respected your power, the rest of the fight will be easy.

I train so I don't have to fight.

I train so I can finish a fight ASAP if needed.

 

[drop bear]

John's point is that there's no striking analogy for takedowns in grappling. I can take you down with conviction without having to drop you hard, and we both know you were taken down. I can do that over and over with relatively low risk to you (same for submissions). But with striking, the only full evidence is hitting someone hard enough to knock them down, which you can't safely repeat over and over.

I think Tony covered this issue pretty well, though. If you and I both have experience with hard sparring (have been knocked down a few times), then you don't have to hit me hard enough to knock me down. We both know pretty well whether a given controlled hit would have been damaging.

I will body shot people I want to send a message to.

 

[drop bear]

Similar in grappling (for me). If you are my student and your partner shoots and puts you in this position, then I'm not interested in seeing anymore. This is such an epic failure that, the first lessons is prevent this. I wouldn't care if the other student doesn't get experience in fighting on the ground. I would stop the fight and then lecture the student. Nothing good can come from this. Then I would ask the other student to do it again

There are levels to takedowns though. You can both be doing the right thing and he does the right thing better.

 

[Yokozuna514]

It's a mental game. If your opponent can feel your power in your initial 3 punches/kicks, after that, you can just move your arm/leg, your opponent will back up. After your opponent has respected your power, the rest of the fight will be easy.


I train so I can finish a fight ASAP if needed.

Yes, I can understand the mental aspect and wanting to 'train' your opponent to get a Pavlovian response to a certain stimuli. That is a tactic we use in knockdown and I suspect it's used in many combat sports where you can deliver a shot that induces pain. Makes perfect sense but again delivering a 100% power shot at the beginning of every match makes you kind of predictable. Tourney day might not be so long for you if this is your only strategy. That is really my only point. Always doing the same thing, no matter how good you are at it, is a recipe for making it easy to beat you.

I can appreciate what you are saying about finishing a fight ASAP. Nothing wrong with being efficient.

 

[Yokozuna514]

There are levels to takedowns though. You can both be doing the right thing and he does the right thing better.

He could be better or just faster getting to it. Being able to improve the situation from that point is also important to know as well as for the opponent to practice their defence against shoots Many teachable moments can be gained from letting the situation play out.

 

[drop bear]

He could be better or just faster getting to it. Being able to improve the situation from that point is also important to know as well as for the opponent to practice their defence against shoots Many teachable moments can be gained from letting the situation play out.

Yeah obviously we do. Jow gar has mentioned that he is basically untakedownable because of the low stance.

I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.

But it isn't tested so we don't know.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Yeah obviously we do. Jow gar has mentioned that he is basically untakedownable because of the low stance.

I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.

But it isn't tested so we don't know.

Ankle picks, trips, or even taking someone's back for a suplex everyone can be taken down. My old wrestling coach said it the best, "think about your opponent as a table. Take a leg a way and the table can still stand but it won't be solid. Take another leg away and down they go.....". Analogy works for striking as well as grappling, imho.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think he would get eaten alive by a quality takedown guy using ankle picks.

I don't understand why people like to use "ankle pick" instead of "knee seize"?

- You have to reach much lower to your opponent's ankle than just to reach behind his knee.
- If you drop your knee down on the ground, you lose your mobility.

His left hand only have to move 1/2 of the distance o reach behind his opponent's knee. If he drops his right knee into his opponent's groin with his body weight behind it, it can be a good finish move.

By using knee seize, you can take your opponent down and then take off. You can't do that by using ankle pick with knee dropping.