Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[punisher73]

If absolutely nothing is mentioned about basically all of fighting during the discussion of an eye gouge then the discussion is worthless. In the context of paying someone for something I could have come up with on my own.

So as an example if someone is using an eye gouge for a mount escape and is not covering the basics of a mount escape. And in demonstration is not doing anything other than frantically trying to hit the eye from the bottom so that the guy on top just gives up and leaves.

The instant assumption is they don't teach the fundamental principles that make martial arts work.

A person who teaches distance control will use distance control regardless whether he specifically mentions it.

Agreed, you can demonstrate an isolated technique (round house kick) and talk about the mechanics and not cover all uses etc. If you are showing an application of the round house kick, then that application should be covering the basics of its application, even if its not the point of the instruction. Or, if the application is such that it doesn't make sense if practically applied, then it would be a good assumption that they don't know what they are talking about.

In the case of the eye gouge for a mount escape. You HAVE to have a basic understanding of the mount position from both the top and the bottom. I don't know how many "striking instructors" from various backgrounds teach the eye gouge as a counter to being mounted. The problem is that EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of that shows the person extending their arm to try and gouge the eyes of the person on top. If you have ANY understanding of the basic mount (top/bottom) you know that you have just given your arm to the guy on top to be broken by an arm bar. That is the BASIC first learn way to arm bar from the mount (at least where I went).

More examples, if you are going to teach counters to other joint locks or chokes, you have to know how to apply that attack properly (rear naked choke defense especially). I see lots of grappling counters that just wouldn't work if the person was applying it right. Make the distinction between someone just grabbing you around the throat/neck from behind versus an actual rear naked choke, don't call them both a rear naked choke and show applications that won't work. Same thing with "take down defenses" that I see. If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled wrestling take down.

 

[drop bear]

In the case of the eye gouge for a mount escape. You HAVE to have a basic understanding of the mount position from both the top and the bottom. I don't know how many "striking instructors" from various backgrounds teach the eye gouge as a counter to being mounted. The problem is that EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of that shows the person extending their arm to try and gouge the eyes of the person on top. If you have ANY understanding of the basic mount (top/bottom) you know that you have just given your arm to the guy on top to be broken by an arm bar. That is the BASIC first learn way to arm bar from the mou

That is the issue I am explaining. If you don't understand the position the technique becomes less relevant.

The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.

There might have been mad skills on display when I had my back turned.

 

[drop bear]

More examples, if you are going to teach counters to other joint locks or chokes, you have to know how to apply that attack properly (rear naked choke defense especially). I see lots of grappling counters that just wouldn't work if the person was applying it right. Make the distinction between someone just grabbing you around the throat/neck from behind versus an actual rear naked choke, don't call them both a rear naked choke and show applications that won't work. Same thing with "take down defenses" that I see. If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled wrestling take down.

Yeah I think that is a different issue in that these are dominant positions and so even if you do the technique you might not get the guy off.

We drill live from rear naked and back takes to train the defence and it is just as likely that the attacker will win.

And I think that concept messes with a lot of instructors heads who think the defence they teach should work. Whether it does or not.

 

[drop bear]

with "take down defenses" that I see. If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled

What you do is you introduce downward elbows.

And so then even if you can't defend the takedown you still technically did because downward elbows would have killed the guy. Which we know because they are illegal in UFC.

Which of course then you can't do hard So instead just flop to the ground or something mid take down. For realism.

The really sad part is he had a high level wrestler in the room and just didn't bother to ever find out what single leg defenses were.

He could have just added an eye gouge to that.

 

[skribs]

The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.

I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.

If you're going to assume that people don't know everything they haven't said, you're going to assume everyone is a heck of a lot dumber than they actually are. And you have a tendency to treat people who you think are dumb pretty poorly.

 

[skribs]

What you do is you introduce downward elbows.

And so then even if you can't defend the takedown you still technically did because downward elbows would have killed the guy. Which we know because they are illegal in UFC.

Which of course then you can't do hard So instead just flop to the ground or something mid take down. For realism.

You picked a great video to make your point. Because that guy gets a lot wrong. The problem is you're assuming that because he gets a lot wrong, that means that everyone that teaches eye gouges also gets the same amount of stuff wrong.

His video also didn't appear to have a whole lot of thought put into it. He kinda rambled on and it was hard to watch.

I agree that this guy in particular is an example of a bad coach. However, if you look at anyone else who teaches eye gouges and say they're bad because they teach eye gouges, then you're drawing incorrect conclusions based on the available evidence.

 

[drop bear]

You picked a great video to make your point. Because that guy gets a lot wrong. The problem is you're assuming that because he gets a lot wrong, that means that everyone that teaches eye gouges also gets the same amount of stuff wrong.

His video also didn't appear to have a whole lot of thought put into it. He kinda rambled on and it was hard to watch.

I agree that this guy in particular is an example of a bad coach. However, if you look at anyone else who teaches eye gouges and say they're bad because they teach eye gouges, then you're drawing incorrect conclusions based on the available evidence.

No.

Eye gouging is just a very good example of what an instructor will do when he has no real solutions.

Then I make the case that spending time on that is wasting time.

So if for example you went to that particular instructors class and trained that single leg defenses for 6 months.

You will be no better at defending single legs than when you started.

If you went to wrestling school and trained single leg defenses and were then told you can do eye gouges five minutes ago. You would be significantly better at eye gouges than that krav guy.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.

If you're going to assume that people don't know everything they haven't said, you're going to assume everyone is a heck of a lot dumber than they actually are. And you have a tendency to treat people who you think are dumb pretty poorly.

No you are giving people the benefit of bias.

So here is a guy who claims he became a bjj black belt in 4 years? Something quick. And is selling a system.

It is not about the system.

Read the comments and how hard it is for evidence to sway people with pre conceived ideas.

Lloyd Irvin Jr.

It is the best example of stories being equal to evidence I have found in a while.

Your whole argument method is story based.

Krav instructor guys teaching method is story based.

It affects your competency in training massively for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If your

- right hand can grab on your opponent's wrist,
- left hand can control his elbow,

your right hand can poke his eyes.

 

[geezer]

The really sad part is he had a high level wrestler in the room and just didn't bother to ever find out what single leg defenses were.

I don't think your response takes into count the apparent context here. Disclaimer: I have no experience with Krav, but that guy's responses remind me of some of the defenses taught in the Wing Chun I studied. Having wrestled as a kid I get your objections, but the context here is that of a self-defense oriented striking response.

He is showing both 1. how to avoid having your kick grabbed, and 2. ideas on how to escape and recover to a striking range using strikes, gouges etc. In my WC experience, I encountered a lot of guys who had little-to-no interest or aptitude for grappling. I don't get it, but that's how they were. In fact that's pretty much how a lot of WC is ...or was (people , at least some people do adapt ...eventually).

Anyway, if that's the context, what do you do to prevent and/or recover from the kick-grab situation being shown (not a single-leg where somebody shoots in tight)?

First, you teach prevention: avoid kick-grabs by kicking low: at the knees, and possibly the groin.

Second, don't leave the kick extended. He taught retraction. In WC we favor his other solution, bending the knee so the shin points more downward and stomping the leg to the floor, freeing the leg by converting it into to step forward. The old saying is "Every kick a step, every step a kick".

Third, you strike as you close. Even if you can't free your leg by stomping, you can often use your trapped leg to pull into striking or clinching range and give a flurry of strikes to help you break away. If that fails, you drop to the ground and try to use kicks (as he also showed) to escape back to a stand-up game. Yeah, it's doubtful, but if you can't grapple, it may be your best shot.

Now my personal responses were informed by having wrestled. But if somebody got my leg at a distance (like the Krav guy showed) I'd be more concerned that he'd torque my foot and knee rather than do a single leg. I've got seriously messed-up legs, so if somehow somebody grabbed my foot like that, I'd go straight to the ground and try to free my foot with a kick before he could wrench my foot around and cripple me. Again. Yes, I've been there before. No fun.

Now DB, I really did like your MMA single leg video. So, if you can find me a clip that better addresses self defense against that long range, kick grab, especially if the "grabber" is planning on torquing the hell out of your ankle and knee, I will study it, practice it, and learn it. After all, I'm old, but I can still learn new tricks!

 

[drop bear]

Third, you strike as you close. Even if you can't free your leg by stomping, you can often use your trapped leg to pull into striking or clinching range and give a flurry of strikes to help you break away. If that fails, you drop to the ground and try to use kicks (as he also showed) to escape back to a stand-up game. Yeah, it's doubtful, but if you can't grapple, it may be your best shot.

I was working on he had no idea what he was doing.

Ok. Kicking low. A single leg is traditionally done from picking the leg up off the ground. You can't get lower than the ground.

You could kick low and bring your foot back. But he didn't.

Oh you are trying to catch the leg between your legs. Which he solved by doing a groin kick?

Anyway the striking option doesn't work the way you are suggesting. You don't not defend the takedown because you want to strike.

You defend the takedown therefore stay standing and then strike. And then hopefully you are still standing and can continue striking. The striking options is mostly the grappling option. (Unless you do some sort of jump guard to a submission thing. Which is different)

So this would be a grappling option.

But he still has to do those basic defenses.

 

[drop bear]

Now DB, I really did like your MMA single leg video. So, if you can find me a clip that better addresses self defense against that long range, kick grab, especially if the "grabber" is planning on torquing the hell out of your ankle and knee, I will study it, practice it, and learn it. After all, I'm old, but I can still learn new tricks!

 

[drop bear]

But yeah that knee twist is the escape. So he should technically be helping you.

 

[geezer]

DB, all your clips are based on a wrestler's single-leg takedown. Regardless of the poor choice terminology that krav guy used, the technique he and his son were demonstrating wasn't a single-leg takedown. There was no closing to proper distance, no set-up, no change in levels, no shoot, no follow through, etc.

What he was showing was something that frequently happens between two non-wrestlers, both engaging from an upright, striker's stance. One guy throws a crappy kick, and the other guy (standing upright and far away grabs it. Then in this example, the grabber suddenly morphs into an experienced wrestler. Kinda dumb really.

I was just considering what a person who doesn't want to grapple can do if the first part happens. You know, somebody standing at kicking range manages to grab your leg or foot when you kick. The options given can work. Unless your opponent suddently becomes a wrestler. That's bad. It's even worse if he morphs into a car, truck or military tank. Man, I gotta get outta the house more.

 

[geezer]

But yeah that knee twist is the escape. So he should technically be helping you.

Just saw this. Yeah --this addresses the situation better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.

Or, at the very least, don't assume what you haven't seen doesn't exist and must be proved to exist or it doesn't (absence of proof isn't proof of absence, or we fall into the fallacy of argument from ignorance). If a claim made is not exceptional, don't treat it as if someone claimed they could do magic (exceptional claims are typically recognized as needing evidence, rather than benefit of the doubt).

So, yeah, give folks the benefit, as long as they aren't making outlandish claims. And we also have to acknowledge that there are probably things we each think to be true (especially as concerns what does and does not work in given situations and from various systems) where we are incorrect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No.

Eye gouging is just a very good example of what an instructor will do when he has no real solutions.

Then I make the case that spending time on that is wasting time.

So if for example you went to that particular instructors class and trained that single leg defenses for 6 months.

You will be no better at defending single legs than when you started.

If you went to wrestling school and trained single leg defenses and were then told you can do eye gouges five minutes ago. You would be significantly better at eye gouges than that krav guy.

It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.

If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That is the issue I am explaining. If you don't understand the position the technique becomes less relevant.

The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.

There might have been mad skills on display when I had my back turned.

Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material.

The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.

 

[drop bear]

Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material.

The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.

Wouldn't taking techniques from guys who have a single clue what they are on about be more efficient?

At least I would know they work somewhere.

 

[drop bear]

It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.

If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.

Nope. If the defence isn't there and they have put an eye gouge in its place that is a pretty obvious sign they don't know the defence.

And it is common. You get guys who can't fight try and trick their way out.

Like that single leg defense.