Sanda

[Kung Fu Wang]

Without the ground game, Sanda develops different set of techniques than MMA does.

Do you think it's more fun to watch Sanda than MMA? Your thought?

 

[Hanzou]

While I like Sanda, their lack of a ground game highly limits my enjoyment of the sport. Also if a Sanda practitioner were to go into general MMA, they would get bulldozed.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Without the ground game, Sanda develops different set of techniques than MMA does.

Do you think it's more fun to watch Sanda than MMA? Your thought?

I like both. Sort of like Tea and Water. Sometimes I want Tea and other times I just water. I don't think MMA is just going to dominate Sanda though. I would think that it may be more difficult to take down a Sanda fighter being that they spend a lot of their training on how to avoid take downs. We have already seen how that played out in MMA

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would think that it may be more difficult to take down a Sanda fighter being that they spend a lot of their training on how to avoid take downs.

This is my concern. MMA seems ignore this part of training. If you are good in the ground skill, when I take you down, you won't have any desire to remain standing. Why should you? The ground game is where you want to fight me.

I'm afraid that as long as the MMA is popular, people won't train how to

- resist against take down.
- remain standing after throwing.

Since in Sanda, when you throw your opponent down, if you

- remain balance, you will get 2 points.
- fall down with your opponent, but you are on top, you will only get 1 point.

 

[EdwardA]

I like both. Sort of like Tea and Water. Sometimes I want Tea and other times I just water. I don't think MMA is just going to dominate Sanda though. I would think that it may be more difficult to take down a Sanda fighter being that they spend a lot of their training on how to avoid take downs. We have already seen how that played out in MMA

I agree, I spent a lot of time training not to be taken down. I can, and have fought on the ground, but fighting on cement is not something I want to do.

 

[Hanzou]

Gravity is something that is never going away. This as already been established over the course of 30 years; If you don't have a ground game in MMA, you're toast. This is why EVERY MMA fighter spends a significant time learning wrestling, BJJ, or both. If NCAA wrestlers can be taken down, anyone can be taken down, that's why everyone learns, and why Bjj coaches are brought into MMA gyms as grappling coaches.

The Chinese have some sort of aversion towards fighting on the ground, but that is to their detriment in the general sphere of MMA. I don't know how the sport is doing overall, but I do hope it can grow outside of China and East Asia.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The sport rule can direct how the sport will be trained. If head punch is not allowed, people will use head to block the punch.

I would like to see both MMA and Sanda exist. This way, some MA training can be maintained for the future generation.

 

[Hanzou]

The sport rule can direct how the sport will be trained. If head punch is not allowed, people will use head to block the punch.

I would like to see both MMA and Sanda exist. This way, some MA training can be maintained for the future generation.

Yeah, like I said, I would like to see Sanda grow beyond Asia (I think the modernization of Chinese MA beyond just Wushu is a very good thing). However, I can see a lack of ground fighting severely limit it, even in China. MMA and Bjj are exploding over there.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

While I like Sanda, their lack of a ground game highly limits my enjoyment of the sport. Also if a Sanda practitioner were to go into general MMA, they would get bulldozed.

This argument is true in different ways for just about every sport/style. You don't see kickboxers or MT guys go into MMA without crosstraining for the same reason. And you don't see pure BJJ guys in MMA for the opposite reason-no one art is really enough to let you succeed in MMA on its own.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is my concern. MMA seems ignore this part of training. If you are good in the ground skill, when I take you down, you won't have any desire to remain standing. Why should you? The ground game is where you want to fight me.

I'm afraid that as long as the MMA is popular, people won't train how to

- resist against take down.
- remain standing after throwing.

Since in Sanda, when you throw your opponent down, if you

- remain balance, you will get 2 points.
- fall down with your opponent, but you are on top, you will only get 1 point.

In MMA they are too willing to go to the ground and fight which is the opposite mindset of Sanda. Sanda trains not to be on the ground and in MMA they practically lay down on the ground for you, which I think gives the impression that it's easy to take people down. This leaves the question. Is it easy because MMA fighters don't mind being on the ground? Are MMA fighters training to remain standing or do they train to get the best position when going to the ground?

 

[JowGaWolf]

If NCAA wrestlers can be taken down, anyone can be taken down, that's why everyone learns, and why Bjj coaches are brought into MMA gyms as grappling coaches.

This brings it back to my question above. Are wrestlers training not to be taken down, or are they training to have the best position on the way to the ground? Being that most wrestling is done on the ground, my guess is that they aren't training to prevent from going to the ground. After all how do you wind and score points in NCAA Wrestling? What is the main goal of an NCAA wrestler? To pin someone's shoulders to the ground. Which is all cases that I know of requires the person to be on the ground to do that. You can't win in NCAA by standing up. You have to go to the ground.

So back to my question. Are they really training not to go to the ground or are they training to be in the best position for when they go to the ground? How many BJJ practitioners can win by remaining standing? What is the possibility that BJJ practitioners can win with the same skill sets while standing up? If their chances of winning improve greatly when on the ground, then what sense does it make to train not to be on the ground?

 

[Hanzou]

This brings it back to my question above. Are wrestlers training not to be taken down, or are they training to have the best position on the way to the ground? Being that most wrestling is done on the ground, my guess is that they aren't training to prevent from going to the ground. After all how do you wind and score points in NCAA Wrestling? What is the main goal of an NCAA wrestler? To pin someone's shoulders to the ground. Which is all cases that I know of requires the person to be on the ground to do that. You can't win in NCAA by standing up. You have to go to the ground.

So back to my question. Are they really training not to go to the ground or are they training to be in the best position for when they go to the ground? How many BJJ practitioners can win by remaining standing? What is the possibility that BJJ practitioners can win with the same skill sets while standing up? If their chances of winning improve greatly when on the ground, then what sense does it make to train not to be on the ground?

There’s a difference between doing a take down, and being taken down. A wrestler is trained how to stop a takedown (the sprawl being one such example), because when you’re taken down, you’re under the control of your opponent unless you can reverse the takedown, which is very hard to do. For a wrestler, getting taken down is potentially a loss, so they are masters at avoiding it, yet they get taken down in MMA and practice all the time. Especially given the unorthodox methods by which BJJ practitioners take people down.

For example, here’s McKenzie Dern, a former Bjj champion, and now a fighter in the UFC winning a match with a takedown into a knee bar;

Once that gets locked in, there’s very little you can do to stop the takedown into joint lock. Listen to the fight commentary, that tells you the view of ground fighting in MMA.

 

[JowGaWolf]

A wrestler is trained how to stop a takedown (the sprawl being one such example), because when you’re taken down, you’re under the control of your opponent unless you can reverse the takedown, which is very hard to do.

I would differ on this one. A Sprawl is a better position as you are going to the ground. A Sprawl is not "remaining on your feet" When you do a sprawl, you are not actively standing on your feet. When you do a sprawl you are just in a better position while on the ground. 3 different people doing sprawls.

Yes, they stopped the takedown, but they did so by going to the ground, not by standing on their feet. Which goes to my question. Are they really training not to go to the ground or are they training to be in the best position for when they go to the ground?

With Sanda, you are actually training not to go to the ground.

 

[JowGaWolf]

For a wrestler, getting taken down is potentially a loss, so they are masters at avoiding it,

For most martial arts being taken down while your opponent is still standing is a bigger loss.

When your opponent takes you down but remains standing then you are a great risk for this.

This is one thing that Sanda works on because that's how they score the points, so for them being take to the ground leads to a loss, unlike MMA where being taken down doesn't always mean that you lose. I could take down a BJJ practioner and still easily lose the fight. In Sanda, you don't get get an opportunity to change that out come. You don't get a chance to "fight out of it."

Once that gets locked in, there’s very little you can do to stop the takedown into joint lock. Listen to the fight commentary, that tells you the view of ground fighting in MMA

The only thing that tells me is that the other fighter should have increased the distance forcing the BJJ Champion to either stand back up or take a defensive position on her back. In the video the other fighter recklessly falls on top of the BJJ Champion in hopes to ground and pound. That's not the plan I would have worked with.

Easy rule with BJJ people when they are on the ground. Stay away from the end that grabs.

 

[Hanzou]

I would differ on this one. A Sprawl is a better position as you are going to the ground. A Sprawl is not "remaining on your feet" When you do a sprawl, you are not actively standing on your feet. When you do a sprawl you are just in a better position while on the ground. 3 different people doing sprawls.

Yes, they stopped the takedown, but they did so by going to the ground, not by standing on their feet. Which goes to my question. Are they really training not to go to the ground or are they training to be in the best position for when they go to the ground?

I wouldn't consider that the ground, since after a sprawl, the grappler can get back to their feet almost instantly and move around the person attempting the takedown. I mean, their knees aren't even touching the floor and the typical followup from a successful sprawl is a back take.

With Sanda, you are actually training not to go to the ground.

Instead of putting up theory, let's look at application;

 

[Hanzou]

For most martial arts being taken down while your opponent is still standing is a bigger loss.

When your opponent takes you down but remains standing then you are a great risk for this.

Keep in mind, you're showing videos from almost 20 years ago. Grappling has evolved quite a bit since that time. For example, compare what you're showing there, and look at modern MMA grapplers like Ryan Hall;

You're looking at a technical increase of several times what we used to see in MMA grappling. People simply aren't DLTing into arm bars anymore. The Gracies in your Sakuraba video for example weren't even well versed in leg locking since most Bjj schools weren't learning leg locks at that time, nor the entries of it (like the Dern and Hall vids I posted). In the past 20 years, leg locking has been completely embraced by the martial art, revolutionizing how to takedown and submit.

This is one thing that Sanda works on because that's how they score the points, so for them being take to the ground leads to a loss, unlike MMA where being taken down doesn't always mean that you lose. I could take down a BJJ practioner and still easily lose the fight. In Sanda, you don't get get an opportunity to change that out come. You don't get a chance to "fight out of it."

Are we talking about the ability to prevent a takedown, or the rules of Sanda versus MMA? Obviously we're talking about two different sports with two different rulesets. What I'm saying is that the lack of grappling knowledge severely hinders a Sanda fighter if they ever intend to expand beyond the sport. I'm also saying that the belief that you can snuff takedowns with some sort of "iron body" training is nonsense. If you can really do it, I recommend you contact a gym or promoter and get ready to make millions of dollars coaching MMA fighters how to stop takedowns while still standing.

The only thing that tells me is that the other fighter should have increased the distance forcing the BJJ Champion to either stand back up or take a defensive position on her back. In the video the other fighter recklessly falls on top of the BJJ Champion in hopes to ground and pound. That's not the plan I would have worked with.

It's rather hard to stand back up and/or increase distance when someone is completely wrapped around your leg and moving in an opposite direction. It's literally your one limb against the weight of their entire body.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm also saying that the belief that you can snuff takedowns with some sort of "iron body" training is nonsense. If you can really do it, I recommend you contact a gym or promoter and get ready to make millions of dollars coaching MMA fighters how to stop takedowns while still standing.

This is possible to do in SC or Judo tournament.

- no striking.
- wrestle with jacket.

Many people can maintain a clean 2-0 record (never been taken down - win 2 rounds in 3 rounds tournament). My teacher had maintained 2-0 record all his life. When he got 1-1-0 (win 1 round, lose 1 round, tie 1 round) record in his last tournament, he retired from his SC competition.

Many SC champions retired just because they lose 1 round in tournament. People take their clean 2-0 (never been taken down) record very seriously.

One of my senior SC brothers said if anybody could take him down just once, he would give that person a black belt. He said that about 40 years ago. Today, nobody could do that yet.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Since the moment that any 2 points of your body (beside your feet) touch the ground, you lost point and competition restart, This make many MMA techniques not effective.

- single leg.
- pull guard.
- jump guard.
- ...

If you can lift your opponent's body over your head (firemen's carry), you will get the highest score 3 points.

You will get

1 point - both fall down, you are on top.
2 points - your opponent is down. You are standing.
3 points - you lift your opponent's body over your shoulder.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wouldn't consider that the ground, since after a sprawl, the grappler can get back to their feet almost instantly

The fact that you make this statement of "getting back to their feet" pretty much falls into line with "being on the ground". If someone is already on their feet then "get back to their feet almost instantly." The only Sprawl that wouldn't fall into this category is a standing sprawl where the practitioner sprawls but still remains standing.

Instead of putting up theory, let's look at application;

We've have already been looking at application. That's what the other videos were. But I'll analyze your video.

0:35.
Sanda Guy charges. BJJ willingly goes on to the ground. (Like I've been stating). He made no effort to stay on his feet.

0:38
Sanda Guy is in a better position than the BJJ. He's on his feet while the BJJ guy is on his back kicking upward. The ultimate reality about being on your back is that it greatly decreases mobility. At this point The Sanda fighter has the advantage.

0:39
The Sanda Guy loses his mobility. He failed to follow my rule. "Stay away from the parts that Grab" The Sanda fighter should have created distance, but he doesn't and as a result get's his ankle grabbed. This is especially no good for the Sanda fighter because of the limited space available.


1:05
That's a crap rule that I don't like. Never a big fan of it. As that starting position is never the same as the position they they had when they were struggling. Anyone that thiinks the BJJ is going to take the exact same position when the initial grab occurred is fooling themselves. He's going to switch his positioning and take advantage of whatever he can using a new stance. If he couldn't complete the technique on the mat then they either need a bigger area "gym floor" or reset with both fighters standing up.

If you look closely the BJJ guy was on his knees when they stopped the action, but they gave him a standing starting position. I don't know why strikers agree to rules like that. Maybe it's arrogance, but I would never agree to that. Either let me fight off Mat, get larger area, or Start both fighters in standing position. The same that they began when they first started.

When the refs come over you can see the Sanda fighter ease up on the defense which at time time the BJJ fighter gets back on both feet.

The picture below shows a different foot position than when the fighters both stopped. When they both were stopped, the BJJ guy has is right foot back and now forwards.

This is is why I don't like rules that do this. They make the top look similar but the feet aren't. This means the structure is no longer the same. If you look closely the BJJ was never in this position when the Sanda fighter started to easy up. Like I state, one would only be fooling themselves if they think that the BJJ fighter isn't going to take advantage of the chance to reposition in a way that gives him a better way to counter what he was originally getting.

The only way I would have been impressed with the BJJ is if the fight started as it began after running off the mat. That way both start from zero. Which is how the fight first started.

If the rules say the fighting stops when off the mat then "all of it stops" That repositioning stuff is crap. If I can't pause a punch in mid flight and then un-pause it without losing power, then the BJJ doesn't get to "maintain the position" that he had when the fight went off the mat. I just wouldn't agree to rules like that.

If he failed to take me down before we left the mat then that's not my fault that he couldn't execute the technique before we went off the mat. A lot of times Strikers agree to stupid rules.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The only Sprawl that wouldn't fall into this category is a standing sprawl where the practitioner sprawls but still remains standing.

I have used "downward pulling" and win in tournament many rounds. If you put both of your hands on the back of your opponent's neck, you then use your whole body weight on top of it, no matter how strong your opponent is, he will be down. You just have to move your leading leg back fast enough.