What's your opinion on this set up?

[Kung Fu Wang]

This take down exist in many CMA systems (such as long fist and preying mantis).

1. You sweep your opponent's leading leg to your right.
2. You pull his back arm to your left.

1 is easy to achieve, but 2 is difficult because most of the time, your opponent's back arm is to far away to reach.

What's your opinion on the following set up? Your thought?

 

[Martial D]

Looks like a variation of a judo reap. But it's inverted. It looks low %, but not untenable.

 

[oftheherd1]

I like it. It's a little complicated but a lot of grappling moves are. Thanks for sharing.

 

[thanson02]

This take down exist in many CMA systems (such as long fist and preying mantis).

1. You sweep your opponent's leading leg to your right.
2. You pull his back arm to your left.

1 is easy to achieve, but 2 is difficult because most of the time, your opponent's back arm is to far away to reach.

What's your opinion on the following set up? Your thought?

Not sure about the hand grab with the lead hand, but the rest of it looks fine. If I was going to try it, I would have probably cleared the second punch with my lead hand and used the motion of the clear to push the opponents head back for the counter-motion.

But that is just me. In the end, if it works, it works.

 

[skribs]

Thoughts I have watching this:

• The thing that I see that makes this work, is that the opponent's lead hand is also dragged to the right. If you were to only drag the reverse hand to the left, it would turn his shoulders and actually give him a better center of balance. What appears to be happening here is both arms are dragged across the body, and then the arms are both pushed backwards.
• With that said, I wouldn't go for his other arm (unless he punched me with it). I'd rather use the arm I have in front of me. If I have my hand on top of his like that, if he lets me bring my elbow in I can get a Figure-4 lock, and if he doesn't, then I can go the other way and circle behind him to throw him down.
• The thing that gets me is that as soon as the guy in black grabs him, the only thing the guy in red moves is his hand. He stays static in his stance, and does not adjust to what his opponent is doing. He does nothing about the leg coming in behind him, nor about the hand on his wrist. Normally, I'd say that doesn't matter in a 1-step demonstration (because you demonstrate it slow enough to see what is going on), but that he DOES react by getting his hand up, suggests that reactions are allowed.

To expand on that last point, if someone grabs my wrist, they will not have it for long, and my feet will not be still. In this case, I would have either stepped back with my forward leg (out of reach of the sweep) or stepped forward with my rear leg (the sweep would not have leverage).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In this clip, he uses the wheeling step to spin your opponent. He then twist his opponent's upper body to his right and scoop his opponent's leg to his left. This can be done on wrestling mat when clinch has established. It's hard to do in striking environment when fists are flying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you look at it as a response of opportunity, rather than something you have to get to, it's less complicated. It starts with a simple sweep with some pressure on the front arm. In recovering from the sweep, your opponent tries to reach with his back arm, so you add a pull there to finish the takedown.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In this clip, he uses the wheeling step to spin your opponent. He then twist his opponent's upper body to his right and scoop his opponent's leg to his left. This can be done on wrestling mat when clinch has established. It's hard to do in striking environment when fists are flying.

Most grappling is subject to those limitations. I mostly teach grappling as an end game and striking as how you get there. So, when fists are flying, we're trying to move in to grappling range and get control of a limb or head. As soon as we have control of something, we want to grapple. (I personally think a lot of Japanese MA that shows grappling with what looks like "catching a punch" was actually meant to be teaching precisely this same thing.)

 

[TSDTexan]

If you look at it as a response of opportunity, rather than something you have to get to, it's less complicated. It starts with a simple sweep with some pressure on the front arm. In recovering from the sweep, your opponent tries to reach with his back arm, so you add a pull there to finish the takedown.

And there in is the rub of TMA methodology. It is very hard to train techniques of "opportunity" under the setting of fully resisting opponents.

consenting partner drills can give the gross motor skills some muscle memory acquisition..... but thats the upper limit.

There is no way to predict when an opponent will provide the exact opening needed. As with other forms of trapping, there has to be some intentional baiting and setup. but if the opponent acts "off script" and isnt baited into attacking the way you want, it becomes a crap shoot.

so how can we improve the way we prepare ourselves to implement low percentage but high effective skill setups?

A question I have asked myself countless times.

The old method is the 1 or 3 steps.. both partners understand the attack and defense... and simply rinse and repeated ad infinitum, until it is programmed into the subconscious and can be applied in the moment without conscious thought.

this old way draws the criticism (of the mma crowd) with regard to aliveness, and because it is not expiedient.

It does require a hefty and substantial amount of investment wrt time & practice. Some would say that same time spent on other practices and methods would be better spent.

 

[skribs]

And there in is the rub of TMA methodology. It is very hard to train techniques of "opportunity" under the setting of fully resisting opponents.

consenting partner drills can give the gross motor skills some muscle memory acquisition..... but thats the upper limit.

There is no way to predict when an opponent will provide the exact opening needed. As with other forms of trapping, there has to be some intentional baiting and setup. but if the opponent acts "off script" and isnt baited into attacking the way you want, it becomes a crap shoot.

so how can we improve the way we prepare ourselves to implement low percentage but high effective skill setups?

A question I have asked myself countless times.

The old method is the 1 or 3 steps.. both partners understand the attack and defense... and simply rinse and repeated ad infinitum, until it is programmed into the subconscious.

Prepare yourself for different ways your opponent can react. In our white belt Hapkido curriculum, we have 27 drills. 8 of these drills are for a cross-arm grab. That means if you're resisting 1 or 2 of them, I still have 6 or 7 techniques available to me.

I think some classes teach this concept better than others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And there in is the rub of TMA methodology. It is very hard to train techniques of "opportunity" under the setting of fully resisting opponents.

consenting partner drills can give the gross motor skills some muscle memory acquisition..... but thats the upper limit.

There is no way to predict when an opponent will provide the exact opening needed. As with other forms of trapping, there has to be some intentional baiting and setup. but if the opponent acts "off script" and isnt baited into attacking the way you want, it becomes a crap shoot.

so how can we improve the way we prepare ourselves to implement low percentage but high effective skill setups?

A question I have asked myself countless times.

The old method is the 1 or 3 steps.. both partners understand the attack and defense... and simply rinse and repeated ad infinitum, until it is programmed into the subconscious and can be applied in the moment without conscious thought.

this old way draws the criticism (of the mma crowd) with regard to aliveness, and because it is not expiedient.

It does require a hefty and substantial amount of investment wrt time & practice. Some would say that same time spent on other practices and methods would be better spent.

My opinion is that focusing on individual techniques is okay at the beginner level, but beyond that, the focus should be on principles. That means every position I train is just about teaching me to recognize what openings exist (what's available to affect his structure), rather than training to recognize a specific technique. Once I start his structure a certain way, the technique is just there. I bait people not into techniques, but into giving me a chance to affect their structure (or give me an opening to strike).

So, I take the techniques and applications (both amounting to what you'd call x-steps) as drills to train transitions and structure control. Live work (including grappling-only work) gives me the chance to work that in both common (most of what happens, by definition) and uncommon (things that pop up that are unusual and give unusual options) situations.

 

[TSDTexan]

My opinion is that focusing on individual techniques is okay at the beginner level, but beyond that, the focus should be on principles. That means every position I train is just about teaching me to recognize what openings exist (what's available to affect his structure), rather than training to recognize a specific technique. Once I start his structure a certain way, the technique is just there. I bait people not into techniques, but into giving me a chance to affect their structure (or give me an opening to strike).

So, I take the techniques and applications (both amounting to what you'd call x-steps) as drills to train transitions and structure control. Live work (including grappling-only work) gives me the chance to work that in both common (most of what happens, by definition) and uncommon (things that pop up that are unusual and give unusual options) situations.

wholeheartedly agree.
having rolled with a lean lightweight rock climber bluebelt who viewed engagements as looking for handholds.

ultimately technique driven arts lose to principle driven arts for the reasons you just shared.
with the understanding that there exist the outliers of extremely high skill technicians that have 99.999 percentiles in speed and coordination.
but they usually are not the kind of individuals that i would expect to be mugged by. rare as unicorns.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It is very hard to train techniques of "opportunity" under the setting of fully resisting opponents. ...

To sweep your opponent's leading leg is easy, but to pull his back arm is difficult. If we reverse this by pulling your opponent's leading arm and sweeping his back leg, it can be easier.

When your opponent moves, there is always a chance that your leading leg can reach to his back leg (when he has narrow stance).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That means every position I train is just about teaching me to recognize what openings exist (what's available to affect his structure), rather than training to recognize a specific technique.

You and I may use different approaches here.

I don't try to recognize an opportunity. I try to create an opportunity. Before I try to create my opportunity, I already know which technique (or techniques) that I intend to set it up.

I have a goal, my goal is to apply a technique (or a set of techniques). I then find a path to reach it (set it up).

For example, when I drag my opponent in circle, if he resists, I can use single leg, front cut, .... If he yields, I can use downward pulling, shoulder throw, ... But it all starts from my circular dragging.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

wholeheartedly agree.
having rolled with a lean lightweight rock climber bluebelt who viewed engagements as looking for handholds.

ultimately technique driven arts lose to principle driven arts for the reasons you just shared.
with the understanding that there exist the outliers of extremely high skill technicians that have 99.999 percentiles in speed and coordination.
but they usually are not the kind of individuals that i would expect to be mugged by. rare as unicorns.

I'm really not sure there are any technique-drive arts - just instructors who fail to help their students make the transition to principles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You and I may use different approaches here.

I don't try to recognize an opportunity. I try to create an opportunity. Before I try to create my opportunity, I already know which technique (or techniques) that I intend to set it up.

I have a goal, my goal is to apply a technique (or a set of techniques). I then find a path to reach it (set it up).

For example, when I drag my opponent in circle, if he resists, I can use single leg, front cut, .... If he yields, I can use downward pulling, shoulder throw, ... But it all starts from my circular dragging.

I think our primary difference is that you're aiming for a specific technique, and I'm aiming for openings. If you get an opening that's almost right for the technique you want, you've practiced a lot of ways to adjust to get to that technique. If I get an opening similar to the opening I want, I'll recognize which structure attacks are available, then from the result of one of those, which techniques are available. This is - in my view - part of the "aiki" philosophical principles. I don't care if I change course a dozen times once I make a connection with the other guy - I'm just following the openings and taking whatever presents at each point. So long as I always have his structure compromised, I can change directions and such fairly freely.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm just following the openings and taking whatever presents at each point.

I have tried your method before. The issues are the following:

Most of the time, when the opportunity is presented, either my foot is not on the right position without the right angle, or my hands can not obtain the contact points that I want. In other words, I can see the opportunity, but I have to let it go. In order for me to put my foot on the right spot, with the right angle, I have to plan ahead of the time. When I plan to land my foot at spot X, I can apply throw A, B, but I cannot apply throw C, D.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have tried your method before. The issues are the following:

Most of the time, when the opportunity is presented, either my foot is not on the right position without the right angle, or my hands can not obtain the contact points that I want. In other words, I can see the opportunity, but I have to let it go. In order for me to put my foot on the right spot, with the right angle, I have to plan ahead of the time. When I plan to land my foot at spot X, I can apply throw A, B, but I cannot apply throw C, D.

The "right position" for what? If there's an opening, I choose what works for that opening. That means there's not really a "right" position, other than me being able to use the opening (which is more a matter of overall strategy).

I find that when I plan ahead, I often find myself trying to get to something, bypassing an opening for something else. When I take what openings I create (what they give me in response to what I do), then I need never bypass an opening.

Again, I think it's mostly a matter of difference in approach. I'm not a methodical person by nature, so that probably contributes.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The "right position" for what?

For example, if your foot is 3 inch close to your opponent's foot, you can apply foot sweep.

- Your method assumes that you are good in all throws.
- My method assume that I'm only good in few throws.

For example, I don't even train left side head lock. Even if a left side head lock opportunity is available, it won't do me any good.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For example, if your foot is 3 inch close to your opponent's foot, you can apply foot sweep.

- Your method assumes that you are good in all throws.
- My method assume that I'm only good in few throws.

No, my method assumes I have a response from nearly any position. This is where the idea of the entry being separate from the technique comes in. I don't need 1,000 techniques. I need about 2 dozen entries and some techniques that work from each entry. I spend most of my time practicing those transitions from entry to technique (rather than just the end technique).

So, if my foot isn't close enough for that foot sweep, what else is available? Sometimes, it's a punch, sometimes it's the other foot. Sometimes it's an overhook. Just depends what the rest of the situation is. I don't need my one foot to be at the right distance to his one foot. I've still got plenty else to work with.