Anti-grappling.

[Hanzou]

Sorry I meant in their entirety rather than just snippets.

Is there a specific reason why I should waste $30 and watch the entirety of these DVDs?

If the highlights are silly, why would the meat of the video be any different?

 

[drop bear]

Answer me this: Why, Hanzou, do you always bring up the worst video examples of "anti-grappling"?

You can't argue that "anti-grappling" doesn't exist, and can't be effective. It's a strange term to use, but in any case, anytime you can thwart a grappler's game and come on out top with striking, you've successfully retained your game while thwarting his, and avoiding truly grappling in the process, have you not? You don't have to grapple a grappler. Now, I'm not saying that there is a fool proof method for this, or that it's even easy to do in the first place. You won't always be able to avoid grappling. But you can, and the more you train to that end, in a realistic way, with grapplers, the more likely you'll be able to.

I can't help but think you are spinning things with an agenda sometimes. While I applaud your crusade against unrealistic defenses against grapplers, you tend to come off as stating that grappling is the end all be all, and that it's a waste of time to counter grappling with anything other than grappling. If that's the case, we might as well just throw away all of these "useless arts" and depart upon a mass exodus to the one and only true martial art, BJJ.

OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY

 

[drop bear]

And what evidence do you base that on? Let me guess, the early UFC, YouTube and the Gracie challenge.

It is kind of what I do being a mma guy and all. That dynamic is pretty commonplace. But yes the striker grappler sports challenges would be the visable evidence.

There was half an army study done somewhere as well where they tested it. Not sure if I can find it.

Or even looking at pure striking and how clinching is used to nullify the damage caused.

And you would have to have a reliable knock out shot otherwise. And I have seen very few people who can claim that.

 

[Steve]

OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY

that actually does seem like good defense. Am I missing something?

 

[Hanzou]

OK then we need to find some good anti grappling then.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq3zt0TWieY

If anti-grappling was like that, I would have no problem with it.

BTW, everyone who advocates elbows to the spine as legit takedown defense should watch that vid around the 10:40 mark. That Wing Chun instructor tells you exactly why that's a bad idea.

 

[K-man]

Wouldn't something called "anti-grappling" be designed to defend against "Grapplers"?

Isn't the a English language a *****. So easy to misunderstand it.

The fact that anti-grappling isn't effective against grappling.

As I see it, anti-grappling seems to be the collective name for techniques to negate the advantage that a grappler might have on the ground by not going to the ground with him. If it was to be used against an acknowledged master like yourself it would become grappling, not anti-grappling.

Both of which are no different than your typical MA knife defense you see in other systems.

So that excuses it? Hmm! But let's compare what is happening here with the way you dismissed Iain Abernethy's work. They are demonstrating techniques so it is not 'real'. Problem is it is not realistic either. Training that way and thinking you are obtaining skills to use against some one with a knife is delusional, but I suppose they recognised a hole in their training and plugged it. Right? Isn't it a shame they didn't bring in a highly skilled knife fighter to test them?

Again, are we to assume that "anti-grappling" isn't meant to defend against grapplers or people who grapple?

Yes, but again the nuance of the English language. Self defence is mainly not fighting, something that many people don't understand. Anti-grappling is mainly not grappling, something you don't understand. It is no different to any other RBMA. All train to try not to go to the ground and all train to get up as fast as you can when you do. It just seems that WC has codified it as anti-grappling.

Right from the horse's mouth;

Victor Gutierrez - Wing Tsun DVD 09 - Anti-Grappling & Chi Gerk

Emin Boztepe - Combat Martial Arts DVD Vol 3 - Counter Grappling

Wing Chun Counter Grappling

Interesting that you would post a link that explains what they are trying to achieve and not listen to what they actually say ... which by the way is opposite what you claim it is saying?

Master Cottrell in action;

How about you tell us how a system called "anti-grappling" (or counter grappling) isn't claiming to be an effective defense against grappling.

Like he demonstrates in the video you posted ... anti-grappling isn't claiming to be an effective defence against grappling. How's that? It is training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down if possible. Did you miss the but where he said if you haven't practised chi sau, pak sau, bong sau etc learn that first, or didn't you see the relevance of that sort of training in WC? And by the way, we do practise similar methods in my classes for exactly the reasons he mentions.

Again you have comprehensively demonstrated ignorance and really called into question your ability to comprehend the English language.


Edit. Thanks to the censors, ***** is a female dog. Sorry, I felt I needed to explain that in case you missed that too.

 

[K-man]

And once again Tez, you bring up an argument that never existed in the first place.

RTK was comparing anti-grappling's claims of effectiveness against grappling to Bjj's claims of effectiveness against striking.

The difference is that Bjj has proven its effectiveness against striking arts. Anti-grappling on the other hand has not proven its effectiveness against grappling.

No one is bashing anything here, we are stating facts pure and simple.

:BSmeter: It's off the scale again!

 

[K-man]

It has nothing to do with stroking an ego. It has everything to do with making claims like this;

Emin Boztepe takes on the grappler. In this DVD, he demonstrates effective techniques for countering anything a grappler might use. Bonus escrima techniques are again included.

In this new and spectacular work, Sifu Victor Gutierrez addresses the techniques of Chi Gerk (sticky legs) and Anti-Grappling for advanced Wing Tsun’ers.


He examines how to deal with advanced grapplers, who know how to implement the softness of adhering to us, while looking for the empty space to move into and exert maximum pressure.


This video will uncover the secrets of how to defend against grapplers by using the most advanced techniques and effective Wing Tsun

With absolutely nothing to back it up.

Don't you think it farcical when you post links to videos that are for sale, to demonstrate your point of view, without watching the videos first? I have some of Emin's videos because his is the most effective WC I have seen. In none of the videos I have is he demonstrating how to grapple on the ground with a grappler.

 

[K-man]

And so is this post from you a personal attack? Doesn't seem to address the topic at hand very much. Rather, seems pretty focuses on an individual poster. It certainly isn't the kind of post that will help keep the conversation from spiraling downward.

Glass houses, as they say.

It's called fighting fire with fire. The other way didn't work. Hanzou just keeps on style bashing and no one seems to care. You and I had a discussion and I tried what you suggested. It not only didn't work, the bashing got worse. How did your discussion with Hanzou go? Not too successful from what I can see.
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

Don't you think it farcical when you post links to videos that are for sale, to demonstrate your point of view, without watching the videos first? I have some of Emin's videos because his is the most effective WC I have seen.

I think its farcical that you view stuff like this;



As effective.

In none of the videos I have is he demonstrating how to grapple on the ground with a grappler.

Well of course not. He's demonstrating how to counter the grappler on the ground and standing up with Wing Chun strikes.

 

[K-man]

Saying that I bring up the worst examples implies that there are better examples. Feel free to post the better examples. I'm willing to check them out.

You have to grapple a grappler when you're in an inferior position, such as being pinned on the ground, or with the grappler being on top of you in mounted position. At that point, striking isn't a good idea, because the grappler's position is so dominant that their retaliation to your strikes are far more devastating, or if they're trained in a submission style they can break a limb or choke you. Which is why Tony said what he said about punching him in the groin while he's on top. You're not going to win that battle.

Now you can argue that your goal is to never end up in that position, but considering the takedown defenses I've seen out of anti-grappling, a grappler is going to get you in that position pretty easily. You may think its hard for someone to get on top of you and start raining blows down on you, but it really isn't, especially if they're trained. Transitions come swift and decisively when you're up against someone who is a novice at grappling.

Well, there's a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling. I know some people on here don't take that seriously, but they really should. There's far more validity in that than in anything coming out of anti-grappling.

Not true! You post the worst examples to denigrate the style. If you were posting the worst examples to show how it could be done more effectively we would be effusive with our thanks and we might all learn from each other's experience. Unfortunately that is not the way you do things.

You are right in that there is a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling and that is because to compete in MMA you need to to be competitive. It's a sport after all. But now you are arguing against yourself because you are always asking why people from other styles don't go in the ring. You gave the answer. They would have to learn to grapple. All I and many others here want to do is try to avoid being taken down and have a rudimentary knowledge of how to get back up if we do. I don't have to learn to grapple on the ground.

Is there a specific reason why I should waste $30 and watch the entirety of these DVDs?

If the highlights are silly, why would the meat of the video be any different?

Yes. You might learn something. Even if from your perspective parts are not sound there must be other parts that are good. I have many DVDs that I pick bits out of to improve my skills. Even in this one, that you claim is silly, the focus is on getting away, not grappling.

If anti-grappling was like that, I would have no problem with it.

BTW, everyone who advocates elbows to the spine as legit takedown defense should watch that vid around the 10:40 mark. That Wing Chun instructor tells you exactly why that's a bad idea.

So now you acknowledge that good technique might actually work against a grappler. Cool, that's real progress!

 

[Tez3]

Perhaps we could have a thread, a sticky even, of all the videos showing the worse of all the styles. There's some for every style, there's even some for styles that don't actually exist or are made up.
The fact that some numpty puts a video on You Tube showing how 'good' they are at whatever is not proof the style itself is at fault. Goodness knows there's enough videos out there of really bad attempts at perfectly sound techniques. Relying on the martial arts equivalents of selfies as proof of the efficacy or otherwise of a style is just plain silly. Asking for videos of people sparring, grappling, 'anti-grappling is also pointless. I could post a video up of myself doing Capoeira, I understand all the principles of it, I understand the history, why's and wherefores but I would perform it very badly indeed (though of course I'd say I was the best in the world lol) so would watching me doing it that badly be proof that Capoeira is ludicrously clumsy and pointless? I rather think it would be proof only of the fact I can't do it (and tell lies), nothing else.

 

[Argus]

I have to say, I do agree with Hanzou on his take of the videos being posted. I just don't agree with the assumption/generalization that this kind of stuff is the only "grappling defense" that WC and other TMA practitioners practice. I've already posted a few good examples in the Wing Chun thread, and I've also seen good stuff from a few instructors who don't have a Youtube presence. There's a lot of selection bias going on here.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

This is a really good discussion folks. Let's just keep everything respectful for all our members and their styles. No need to take a shot at anyone even if you do not like what they say or how a system does things. Just keep it respectful! We have had one moderator warning along this line so let's all be on our best behavior. Thanks.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is well known I am not a fan of what is mostly out there categorized as anti-grappling.(yet I like and respect Wing Chun and have witnessed some good practitioner's dismantle people) Why Hanzou, Drop Bear, Steve or I think the one Wing Chun video above posted by Drop Bear works is because he is teaching a sprawl and you can see him demonstrate it fully in a couple of variations as well as demonstrating it and popping back up and staying on his feet. A very good idea for Wing Chun practitioners or anyone interested in self defense on the street. Now, I am not saying what he is doing is great or fantastic or revolutionary (I do not like the scarecrow thing) but what he is showing will work. The sprawl is effective against a single or double leg takedown. Really effective and should be in everyone's skill set to stop a shoot! That is a good base for him and his students to explore and hopefully they can put it into practice against skilled grapplers and see positive results. Now I am also confident that Steve, Drop Bear, Myself, Hanzou, Tez3, K-Man, etc. would also agree that if you are taken down you can attempt to kick at the person taking you down. MMA does it with the up kick and while it definitely is not ideal it can give someone trying to close and get to a position of dominance on top a certain some thing to worry about. Wing Chun exponents are looking at kicking in a cycle like manner to keep a grappler off them. Certainly not an up kick and definitely lower down the line than just utilizing good body positioning but.... it could work in the right circumstance.

Maybe we can find some things to agree on? :idunno:

 

[Hanzou]

Not true! You post the worst examples to denigrate the style. If you were posting the worst examples to show how it could be done more effectively we would be effusive with our thanks and we might all learn from each other's experience. Unfortunately that is not the way you do things.

Where have I ever done that?

You are right in that there is a good reason why everyone in MMA learns grappling and that is because to compete in MMA you need to to be competitive. It's a sport after all. But now you are arguing against yourself because you are always asking why people from other styles don't go in the ring. You gave the answer. They would have to learn to grapple. All I and many others here want to do is try to avoid being taken down and have a rudimentary knowledge of how to get back up if we do. I don't have to learn to grapple on the ground.

The proper answer is that MMA practitioners quickly learned that the best way to beat grapplers was to learn to grapple themselves. This is what led to the fading of Bjj as the dominant fighting style in MMA.

This anti-grappling stuff has been tried before, and it failed miserably. What we have here are people who simply don't want to accept reality, and honestly believe that a straight punch to the nuts while on your back will keep that big burly wrestler from smacking their head into the concrete. It irresponsible and dangerous to lead people in such a way.

What makes this all the more silly is that there are very simple ways to counter superior grappling positions. You don't need to come up with convoluted and faulty solutions when better solutions are readily available. For example, the Upa for the mount, and the Bridging Sweep for side control. These movements are simple, safe, and effective.

Yes. You might learn something. Even if from your perspective parts are not sound there must be other parts that are good. I have many DVDs that I pick bits out of to improve my skills. Even in this one, that you claim is silly, the focus is on getting away, not grappling.

If there are sound parts to anti-grappling, I have yet to see them.

So now you acknowledge that good technique might actually work against a grappler. Cool, that's real progress!

Where did I ever say different?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

honestly believe that a straight punch to the nuts while on your back will keep that big burly wrestler from smacking their head into the concrete.

Yes, like Tony Dismukes before mentioned having people try that on him I am in total agreement. Tony knows it will fail and so does any good grappler. If someone is mounted on you and you try to strike them in the groin it will not work. It is a bad, idea and will end badly! It is much better to learn the very simple to perform "Bump and Roll" and gain better position to work from. However, I am confident that no one on our board feels a strike to the groin when someone is mounted on you is a good idea.

 

[Hanzou]

However, I am confident that no one on our board feels a strike to the groin when someone is mounted on you is a good idea.

Check out the OP.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think if we are all in a room having a beer we would all get along very well! Even if we all have a few things we do different than the other guy.

All of us have more in common with each other than we do most other people. That includes if you practice for sport, street, fitness or whatever.

 

[Hanzou]

I have to say, I do agree with Hanzou on his take of the videos being posted. I just don't agree with the assumption/generalization that this kind of stuff is the only "grappling defense" that WC and other TMA practitioners practice.

Where/When was that argument ever made?

I've already posted a few good examples in the Wing Chun thread, and I've also seen good stuff from a few instructors who don't have a Youtube presence. There's a lot of selection bias going on here.

As I've stated before, if you examples of more technically sound examples of anti-grappling, feel free to post them.

Just FYI: Drop Bear's example isn't anti-grappling.