Anti-grappling.

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

Agree! After all, we are all interested in MA.

When Hanzon talks about "anti-grappling", he is looking at this issue from a grappler point of view. IMO, when we talk about striking vs. grappling, we should not have any style boundary.

The

- striking art is more than just the WC system. It can be long fist, Baji, Taiji, boxing, MT, Karate, TKD, ... .
- grappling art is more than just the BJJ system, it can be Shuai-Chiao, wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Sumo, Aikido, ...

IMO, since most grapplers don't mind to "cross train" the striking art, they also don't mind to test their grappling skill against strikers. If all strikers also don't mind to "cross train" the grappling art, and also are willing to test their striking skill against grapplers, this ridicules term "anti-grappling" will never even be invented.

If a wrestler doesn't mind to learn boxing, why should a boxer refuse to learn wrestling? No matter you are a striker, or you are a grappler, you should always test your skill against people from the other side of the fence.

Just image that if you are a

- striker and no grappler can take you down,
- grappler and no strikers can knock you down,

that kind of fun even money cannot buy it. Is that our common goal and we all want to achieve?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yeah, but not defined nor refined as what is BJJ. There is grappling in Muay Thai, Shotokan, Boxing, and many other 'striking' arts as well. Again not defined the same as Judo, BJJ, GJJ, Catch, Sambo, etc.

To me, good grappling is good grappling. Some arts cover a larger subset of the whole than others, but if it's good, it's good.The grappling I've learned from Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali, etc, has helped inform my BJJ grappling.

With respect, what you are quoting is being taken out of context. What is written here is an example of a situation, not a specific defence against the mount. Secondly, if I am reading it correctly, it specifically excludes a trained grappler by saying that on the street there is a high probability that the groin will be exposed. Obviously attacking the groin is not always an option and if it is available it is not necessarily the best option, but it is a legitimate target in RBSD.

Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.

1) Attacking the groin when mounted is a bad tactic even against a untrained grappler.
2) I don't see anything explicitly or implicitly excluding a trained grappler from the situation.
3) He doesn't say the groin will always be an available target, but the fact that he says the groin "is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position" suggests that he thinks it this is a high-percentage tactic.
4) I certainly agree that the groin is a legitimate target in a RBSD situation. Just not from the bottom of the mount.

(Responding to drop bear's claim that grapplers have an edge over strikers at equal levels of training) And what evidence do you base that on? Let me guess, the early UFC, YouTube and the Gracie challenge.

I don't know about drop bear, but for me it's those plus my observations from 33 years in a variety of striking, grappling, and weapons arts. Something I discovered long before I ever even heard of BJJ was that it's easier to get the clinch than it is to prevent it.

Of course, I don't have much interest in the question of whether "grapplers" have an advantage over "strikers" or vice versa, because I see no reason to limit yourself to one modality. Grappling is more effective when you know how to strike. Striking is more effective when you know how to grapple.

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

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

Thank you! See, everyone, WC guys can do good anti-grappling. Interesting how it begins with actually understanding how grappling works.

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.

Wouldn't training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down be an essential element of any effective defense against grappling?

I don't think anyone is claiming that in order to fight a grappler you have to become an expert at rolling around on the ground applying triangle chokes or the like. You just want to have some skill at preventing takedowns, escaping the most common bad positions on the ground if you do get taken down, and getting back to your feet safely. Unless you plan on competing in MMA, you probably don't even have to learn any submission defense.

The problem comes when folks put out instruction claiming to teach those skills which is ineffective because they have never bothered to test their solutions with actual grapplers. This isn't a knock against (for example) Wing Chun. I'm sure there are plenty of Wing Chun practitioners who have put in the time working with actual grapplers to know what they are doing. I'm not really plugged in to the WC community, but off-hand Dominick Izzo and Jin Young come to mind. I'm sure if I was involved with the WC community I would know more names of WC practitioners who can demonstrate their anti-grappling strategies without spouting nonsense.

I will agree with Hanzou that the examples he has posted are pretty embarrassing for the individuals involved.

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

Sure it is. It's just technically sound anti-grappling as opposed to some of the silly stuff in the other videos you posted. If you define anti-grappling as only the silly stuff that doesn't work, then of course no one will be able to post examples of effective anti-grappling.

 

[Steve]

To me, good grappling is good grappling. Some arts cover a larger subset of the whole than others, but if it's good, it's good.The grappling I've learned from Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali, etc, has helped inform my BJJ grappling.



Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.

1) Attacking the groin when mounted is a bad tactic even against a untrained grappler.
2) I don't see anything explicitly or implicitly excluding a trained grappler from the situation.
3) He doesn't say the groin will always be an available target, but the fact that he says the groin "is one of the first places to attack when being pinned from a mount position" suggests that he thinks it this is a high-percentage tactic.
4) I certainly agree that the groin is a legitimate target in a RBSD situation. Just not from the bottom of the mount.



I don't know about drop bear, but for me it's those plus my observations from 33 years in a variety of striking, grappling, and weapons arts. Something I discovered long before I ever even heard of BJJ was that it's easier to get the clinch than it is to prevent it.

Of course, I don't have much interest in the question of whether "grapplers" have an advantage over "strikers" or vice versa, because I see no reason to limit yourself to one modality. Grappling is more effective when you know how to strike. Striking is more effective when you know how to grapple.



Thank you! See, everyone, WC guys can do good anti-grappling. Interesting how it begins with actually understanding how grappling works.



Wouldn't training to keep your feet and avoid being taken down be an essential element of any effective defense against grappling?

I don't think anyone is claiming that in order to fight a grappler you have to become an expert at rolling around on the ground applying triangle chokes or the like. You just want to have some skill at preventing takedowns, escaping the most common bad positions on the ground if you do get taken down, and getting back to your feet safely. Unless you plan on competing in MMA, you probably don't even have to learn any submission defense.

The problem comes when folks put out instruction claiming to teach those skills which is ineffective because they have never bothered to test their solutions with actual grapplers. This isn't a knock against (for example) Wing Chun. I'm sure there are plenty of Wing Chun practitioners who have put in the time working with actual grapplers to know what they are doing. I'm not really plugged in to the WC community, but off-hand Dominick Izzo and Jin Young come to mind. I'm sure if I was involved with the WC community I would know more names of WC practitioners who can demonstrate their anti-grappling strategies without spouting nonsense.

I will agree with Hanzou that the examples he has posted are pretty embarrassing for the individuals involved.



Sure it is. It's just technically sound anti-grappling as opposed to some of the silly stuff in the other videos you posted. If you define anti-grappling as only the silly stuff that doesn't work, then of course no one will be able to post examples of effective anti-grappling.

I wish I could like this post more than once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

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.

Well here it is ... what part of it do you think pertains to groin strike?

As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until Hanzou threw it in to take a low shot at WC.


So we are all on the same page, here is the reference Hanzou used to put it down.


Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA


When I read the Hanzou's posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.


Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.


So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc. With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.


As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.


Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.


I look forward to some interesting discussion.

I never mentioned groin strike!

 

[drop bear]

Where/When was that argument ever made?



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.

It depends how semantic you want to get with the concept. And I am pretty much against arguing a term if the idea is there.. There are shades of grey with this.

So if someone is grappling with an emphasis on stand up and wants to call it anti grappling I am happier with that than someone doing something bloody stupid and calling it bjj.

Yes takedown defence is grappling.

The comment that stood out for me was in the anti grapple link I posted. Or grapple link. I don't care which was that he was not doing anything revolutionary.

That is the key. You are not going to revolutionise grappling unless you are a top level grappler.

It is the hardest and most ineffective way to gain a skill. And yet is one of the most commonly tried. People come to a new concept with their old baggage.

I do karate why cant I use karate blocks in boxing? I do wing chun why can't I just chain punch on the ground? I do mma why cant i just double leg everybody in judo?

Everybody going into a new style faces this dilemma. What they know feels more natural and gives quicker gratification than what they don't know. And if every body is learning the same thing how do they get the sneaky edge.

Instead of just being a bit humble and putting in the hard work to learn the skill.

Hence anti grappling at its spazzyest.

 

[drop bear]

Agree! After all, we are all interested in MA.

When Hanzon talks about "anti-grappling", he is looking at this issue from a grappler point of view. IMO, when we talk about striking vs. grappling, we should not have any style boundary.

The

- striking art is more than just the WC system. It can be long fist, Baji, Taiji, boxing, MT, Karate, TKD, ... .
- grappling art is more than just the BJJ system, it can be Shuai-Chiao, wrestling, Judo, Sambo, Sumo, Aikido, ...

IMO, since most grapplers don't mind to "cross train" the striking art, they also don't mind to test their grappling skill against strikers. If all strikers also don't mind to "cross train" the grappling art, and also are willing to test their striking skill against grapplers, this ridicules term "anti-grappling" will never even be invented.

If a wrestler doesn't mind to learn boxing, why should a boxer refuse to learn wrestling? No matter you are a striker, or you are a grappler, you should always test your skill against people from the other side of the fence.

Just image that if you are a

- striker and no grappler can take you down,
- grappler and no strikers can knock you down,

that kind of fun even money cannot buy it. Is that our common goal and we all want to achieve?

Yeas and no. Some people just love the system they do. We have boxers who won't grapple. The reason being personal choice.

 

[Hanzou]

Well here it is ... what part of it do you think pertains to groin strike?

I never mentioned groin strike!

I was merely pointing out that you think highly of anti-grappling despite its techniques being highly flawed. I.e. groin punches to counter the mount.

 

[K-man]

I was merely pointing out that you think highly of anti-grappling despite its techniques being highly flawed. I.e. groin punches to counter the mount.

I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have never advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.

 

[drop bear]

I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have never advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.

OK so now I am going to get semantic. But that is very much grappling as well. You are describing scrambles basically.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwYTR4nAWs

 

[Steve]

I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have never advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.

Right. Lest anyone think otherwise, kman does not train in wc and so is not an authority on wc anti grappling. He's just a fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hanzou]

I have given no indication of what I think about anti-grappling apart from the concept of training to reduce the likelihood of being taken to the ground and being able to escape to regain your feet if you do go down. I have never advocated a groin strike from the mount and I teach that groin strikes are not the go to option that many people think they are. That doesn't mean the groin is not a valid target when the opportunity dictates.

So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?

 

[K-man]

OK so now I am going to get semantic. But that is very much grappling as well. You are describing scrambles basically.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwYTR4nAWs

Mate, I wish I was that agile! :lfao:

 

[K-man]

Right. Lest anyone think otherwise, kman does not train in wc and so is not an authority on wc anti grappling. He's just a fan.

:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

 

[K-man]

So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?

I have no opinion as I have never seen it practised. I do not regard YouTube as being anything more than what someone else bothered to put on line. I do think the concept of anti-grappling is valid as obviously do almost every other style of martial art that does not advocate fighting on the ground. As to whether it is an appropriate name ... ?

There is no such thing as poor technical concept. (Your English letting you down again. ) There are only techniques that are appropriate for the situation or not. Poor choice of technique is one thing, using poor technique is another. I have taken many techniques from other styles for myself. The video that Drop Bear posted that you claimed wasn't anti-grappling has a shoot that I teach and teach how to counter. I like some of chinaboxer's techniques and others don't work for me at all. But, I don't label the things I don't like as 'silly' or 'fraudulent'. They might work for others, who knows?

As I said before, if you were to take a video that you thought had poor technique or poor choice of technique, pointed out why it was wrong, rather than just dissing it, and offering an alternative that you thought might be more effective, then the tone of the place would go up markedly. That is what I did with your two 'Krav' videos that were not sound technique. Even in your post above you couldn't resist adding your opinion to the question.

Let's look at your question with fresh eyes.

"So do you think highly of anti-grappling (with its poor technical concepts), or not?

becomes ...

"K-man, I have difficulty accepting that some of the anti-grappling techniques I have seen would work in practice, especially against an opponent with a grappling background. What is your opinion of anti-grappling?"

to which I would have replied ...

"Good point Hanzou." I really don't know as I don't study WC and my grappling skills are very basic, hopefully enough to keep me out of trouble. But can you give me an example of what you feel they could do better?"

and you might have said ...

"Well for starters I saw one video where the guy was advocating a strike to the groin to escape the mount. From my experience it will not work because the groin is really not accessible and if you take your arms away from protecting your face, you will get hit. Much better you should shift your foot up beside his leg to prevent him posting, lift your hips quickly to throw him forward, grab an arm and roll. You will probably end up in his guard in which case there are several easy escapes I can show you. In the meantime I have searched YouTube and found what I would consider a good example of what I was describing."

to which I would have responded ...

"Thank you Hanzou. That was really useful information. I'll give it a shot next night we train."

And I would have given you a +ve rep.

 

[Steve]

Wait. What???!!! After all of this you are seriously suggesting you have no opinion??? Come on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K-man]

Wait. What???!!! After all of this you are seriously suggesting you have no opinion??? Come on.

On this topic, yes!

 

[drop bear]

On this topic, yes!

What was that original post then?

 

[K-man]

Here is the OP.

As the result of numerous disparaging references to a anti-grappling in a couple of other threads I thought it might be interesting to flesh out the concept. To be honest, I had never heard of anti-grappling until Hanzou threw it in to take a low shot at WC.

So we are all on the same page, here is the reference Hanzou used to put it down.

Hands Off WingTsun Anti Grappling and MMA

When I read the Hanzou's posts dissing WC I was really wondering what this ridiculous anti-grappling stuff was. It seemed like it must be a little bit like anti-matter. You know, matter plus anti-matter and 'poof' no more matter. Grappling plus anti-grappling ... 'poof' ... well, you get the picture.

Imagine my surprise when I read the article. It actually makes sense, unlike the rant against it.

So let's consider the situation. WC is a dynamic system. That is, it is evolving like BJJ, Krav, Systema and other modern systems. Grappling has always been with us beginning with wrestling but also in Jujutsu, Tegumi from Okinawa and a number of other arts. Judo has been with us for ages, wrestling for even longer but neither of those was really an issue for people learning Boxing, Karate, TKD etc. With BJJ the dynamic changed. Even more since Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and the advent of MMA.

As as we have already discussed at length not all martial arts are trained for competition and to the unending surprise and chagrin of others not all martial artists want to fight in competitions. Even though these arts are not competing it is inevitable that at some stage trained martial artists from any style you care to name will come into contact with trained exponents of BJJ. As was seen in the early days of the UFC, the GJJ guys did a fantastic job of showcasing their art.

Now, most martial arts have just accepted BJJ for what it is. Some guys have cross trained, some have gone to MMA and picked up bits of it. Krav and Systema have take bits of BJJ, but hats off to WC who have looked at it, concluded that they still don't want to be on the ground from choice, but that some grappler might take them to the ground. Hence the need to develop strategies to combat a grappler. Rather than diss WC for using their system to develop strategies to combat a grappler using WC principles, I think WC should be commended.

I look forward to some interesting discussion.
:asian:

What was that original post then?

As I said I hadn't even heard the term before Hanzou wrote about it. I didn't want the other thread wrecked so I started a new one to discuss it. As I said, I believe, WC should be commended for developing strategies to use against grapplers, not denigrated. That is nothing to do with an opinion on whether what they have produced is good or bad. I have never watched a video of anti-grappling except what has been posted here and I have never seen it first hand. How could I have an educated opinion? I know there is someone around here who has strong opinions about things of which he has no knowledge but that is not me.
:asian:

 

[Tez3]

When someone is in mount on you, a suitable groin strike could be a bite............................................:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

 

[RTKDCMB]

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



[/FONT][/I][/COLOR]With absolutely nothing to back it up.

You can say anything you want about anti grappling but at least they have 'stepped up' and posted videos of themselves to prove their claims (however successfully), which is more than I can say about you.