I was looking around youtube at different variations of Hane Goshi and accidentally found a video I made way back in 2010. I was trying to demo some Danzan Ryu throws. This was my first and only time in front of the camera. We didn't really know what to do between the throws... so we look a little goofy. But some of the throws came out better than others. (I am the guy doing the throwing...)
Look what I found...
- Thread starter wab25
- Start date
There are many good and effective throws in that clip.
The only concern is some "entering strategy" are missing. I don't like to start a throw from I grab my opponent and he grabs me situation. I like to start a throw from my opponent has boxing guard situation. This way, I have to move in, make a contact, establish a clinch, and execute my throw.
The only concern is some "entering strategy" are missing. I don't like to start a throw from I grab my opponent and he grabs me situation. I like to start a throw from my opponent has boxing guard situation. This way, I have to move in, make a contact, establish a clinch, and execute my throw.
Very cool. Well executed throws.
@Kung Fu Wang - it looks like Danzan-ryu takes what we (in NGA) would call a "classical" approach to techniques, where the version seen as the starting point has limited entry options (usually by starting from a grip position). I'd assume that, like NGA, they train other entries to the techniques separately - we call those "applications".
@Kung Fu Wang - it looks like Danzan-ryu takes what we (in NGA) would call a "classical" approach to techniques, where the version seen as the starting point has limited entry options (usually by starting from a grip position). I'd assume that, like NGA, they train other entries to the techniques separately - we call those "applications".
You are correct. There is no entering strategy here. This is designed to teach the mechanics of the throw. That way, when you do enter, you can properly execute the throw. You are correct, entries do need to be studied and added. Gerry is correct in describing our approach. In my experience, by keeping the entry and the throw separate, you learn the individual building blocks. You can then assemble them in any combination you want. When I have trained with other arts that train the two together, it gets hard for me to separate the throw from the entry... which initially sounds good. But for me, it makes it harder to execute the same throw from a different entry. But, that may be user error... I still have a long way to go.
The concern is "Does your building block work in a striking environment (or just work in a wrestling environment)?"
The entering strategy can affect the technique. For example, what's the point to train a "hip throw" by wrapping around your opponent's waist when his free hand can punch on your head? If you use underhook instead of waist wrapping, your opponent will have no free hand. So how to achieve an underhook can determine whether your hip throw will work in a striking environment or not. Of course if you only concern the wrestling environment that striking is not allowed, the waist wrapping will not be an issue.
Another example is to pull on your opponent's back arm while scoop his leading leg. This is very difficult to set up. But if you push on your opponent's leading arm and back fist his head, you will force him to block with his back arm. this way you will have chance to pull his back arm.
IMO, if you don't try to use your striking to set up your throw, your throwing skill will be hard to apply in a striking environment.
Here is an example to use punch to achieve an clinch, and then execute the throw. You move in through an angle to avoid body spinning.
For me, this is the value of separating the entry from the technique. I know a bunch of entries, and a bunch of techniques. If we could lay them out on a grid, I could mark which entries I find useful with which techniques. And the technique is often altered by the entry. So, for instance, with the point about underhook vs wrapped arm - those are both viable options, and which is better really depends on the situation, and how I end up at the end of the entry. If I can get the underhook, I can control the arm better. If I can get the arm wrapped on his torso, I get a better connection to the torso. Sometimes one is more important than the other.
But pay attention to what the OP said. What you see is one way they practice. So, while this version (the "classical" form, in my vocabulary) doesn't show using a strike to enter, nor entering against a strike, it's possible (I'd guess probable) they have one or both of those variants for every technique, as they practice other forms of it.
Danny T
Senior Master
Yeap.
And I assume there are follow ups as well though not shown just as the entries aren't.
The short answer is, yes the building blocks work in a striking environment. Very well, actually. Gerry and Danny have hit the nail on the head with their responses.
Once the student starts to perform the throw reasonably... we work on entrances from grappling, from the other guy throwing strikes, as a part of you throwing strikes to set it up, from grip breaks and hold escapes, as part of joint lock flows... In fact we are always looking for new ways to set up and use our techniques from different situations.
As far as the throw being taught separately, and then later the entrance or entrances worked on... I have experienced this pattern on Danzan Ryu mats, Judo mats, BJJ mats, MMA mats, and Karate floors. It may not be a pattern for everyone, but it definitely works.
Lastly, understand that no one here is disagreeing with you about the importance of the entrance. You are absolutely right about the entrance. Without a good entrance, the throw will not work.
You can train your throwing art in the following ways:
1. You train throwing technique first. You then add entering strategy afterward.
2. You train entering strategy first. You then add throwing techniques afterward.
IMO, 2 > 1.
By using method 2, you can use entering strategy
- X to set up throws A, B, C, ...
- Y to set up throws D, E, F, ...
- ...
You can group all your throws by your entering strategies. It's much easier to learn the throwing art this way since the number of entering strategy is a small number.
Another advantage of method 2 is you start to pay attention on the striking art and wrestling art integration during day 1. How to eliminate your opponent's striking ability will be your major consideration for your entering strategy design.
1. You train throwing technique first. You then add entering strategy afterward.
2. You train entering strategy first. You then add throwing techniques afterward.
IMO, 2 > 1.
By using method 2, you can use entering strategy
- X to set up throws A, B, C, ...
- Y to set up throws D, E, F, ...
- ...
You can group all your throws by your entering strategies. It's much easier to learn the throwing art this way since the number of entering strategy is a small number.
Another advantage of method 2 is you start to pay attention on the striking art and wrestling art integration during day 1. How to eliminate your opponent's striking ability will be your major consideration for your entering strategy design.
Last edited:
Each has its advantages. If you train the throw first, it gives context for the entry move. If you train the entry first, you can make faster transition to application when you learn the throw.
Similar threads
