To Takedown or Not to Takedown?

[isshinryuronin]

Recent posts on the Matsumura Seito thread redirected the topic (somehow) to takedowns and a thought occurred to me - Of what value are takedowns in the first place? Do the pros outweigh the cons? (There are both.) Of course, skill level plays a part - Boxers and wrestlers will have conflicting opinions on this. Putting individual preferences/abilities aside, what objective elements of takedowns, their nature, give value, or not, in non-sport combat?

IMO, the most basic consideration is that if someone goes down, he can get back up. This leads to the following axiom: A takedown is only useful if it leads to the opponent NOT being able to get back up in a condition (at least for a short while) that allows him to effectively continue to fight. Without this the takedown is of little value. Well, it may have some value in giving you a breather while he gets up, but it's better if he doesn't.

Takedowns leading to incapacitation: A hard slamming takedown. Facilitating a joint injury during or just after. Positioning him for a solid strike with him out of position to counter (such as face down/limbs pinned). These are all good things. But such things can be accomplished while on your feet as well. Perhaps this is better as it avoids the risks takedowns may present: Being physically outclassed in size and strength leading you to stall mid-takedown (very bad unless you have excellent technique to overcome this physical disadvantage). Possibility of getting entangled/tripped and ending up on the bottom. Effective takedowns require simultaneous (complex) coordination of several body parts, no mean feat against a resisting opponent.

Stand-up combat largely avoids such risks. It is simpler and more direct. So, is it worth the effort and risk of taking down the opponent? If so, when and why is it advantageous?

 

[drop bear]

Because when you are both standing in front of each other. He has the same chance of hitting you as you have at hitting him. You literally can't hit him without giving him that oportunity.

When you are sitting on somebody they have almost no chance of hitting you. And you can hit him with impunity.

Considering a fight can be ended with one punch. Getting free punches is super advantageous.

Even if you just trip them and say get a couple of shots in while they recover. That is shots you get that they can't answer.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Recent posts on the Matsumura Seito thread redirected the topic (somehow) to takedowns and a thought occurred to me - Of what value are takedowns in the first place? Do the pros outweigh the cons? (There are both.) Of course, skill level plays a part - Boxers and wrestlers will have conflicting opinions on this. Putting individual preferences/abilities aside, what objective elements of takedowns, their nature, give value, or not, in non-sport combat?

IMO, the most basic consideration is that if someone goes down, he can get back up. This leads to the following axiom: A takedown is only useful if it leads to the opponent NOT being able to get back up in a condition (at least for a short while) that allows him to effectively continue to fight. Without this the takedown is of little value. Well, it may have some value in giving you a breather while he gets up, but it's better if he doesn't.

Takedowns leading to incapacitation: A hard slamming takedown. Facilitating a joint injury during or just after. Positioning him for a solid strike with him out of position to counter (such as face down/limbs pinned). These are all good things. But such things can be accomplished while on your feet as well. Perhaps this is better as it avoids the risks takedowns may present: Being physically outclassed in size and strength leading you to stall mid-takedown (very bad unless you have excellent technique to overcome this physical disadvantage). Possibility of getting entangled/tripped and ending up on the bottom. Effective takedowns require simultaneous (complex) coordination of several body parts, no mean feat against a resisting opponent.

Stand-up combat largely avoids such risks. It is simpler and more direct. So, is it worth the effort and risk of taking down the opponent? If so, when and why is it advantageous?

Ever get taken down out side the dojo or ring or without a mat on the floor? The ground, floor, pavement is hard. Especially if the person being taken down has no idea how to fall. They tend to get hurt.

Also depressing on the situation, or job, you are not standing there boxing, and punching or kicking someone, could get you sued. Where a takedown to restraint will not. Also if he gets back up, take him down again, if that is what presents itself.

And there are those that can take a punch or a kick pretty darn well, and they will come back at you too

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's easy to take your opponent down than to knock your opponent down.

Take down has advantage over knock down for legal issue.

When you

- knock your opponent down, it's difficult for you to defend yourself in the courtroom.
- take your opponent down, you can always say, "My opponent and I got into some argument. Our body tangled on each other, and we both fell down. My opponent's injury was a 100% accident."

 

[Prince_Alarming]

You're not necessarily going to have a choice over whether to "take it to the ground " or not and practicing technically sound takedowns and defenses against them means you know what to do if the fight does go there

 

[skribs]

Take-downs allow you more control of the situation. If you take someone down and hold them down, it's a lot harder for them to hit you with a lucky swing. It's especially useful for situations where you know there's only one opponent, because if you can get on top of them you control them. In BJJ and in MMA there's the idea of "cooking" your opponent from mount. You just need to be heavy on them, and they spend all their energy trying to get out. It's a very efficient way to win a fight.

It's a good way to control someone until help arrives. For example, if you caught someone trying to steal and someone else called the cops, or if you are a cop and you're waiting on backup to help. One of my students recently got into a fight in school: the other kid swung at him, he took the kid down and held him down until teachers arrived. Got suspended, but both our Professor and the kid's father agreed that it was self-defense and that was good of him to do.

It's also good in situations where you need to safely control the other person, but don't want to hurt them. A teenager throwing a tantrum? You need to protect others and yourself, but you should protect them as well. Legend has it this was also a big reason behind the development from Judo to Aikido, is something that causes less harm when you take someone down.

 

[HighKick]

Take-downs allow you more control of the situation. If you take someone down and hold them down, it's a lot harder for them to hit you with a lucky swing. It's especially useful for situations where you know there's only one opponent, because if you can get on top of them you control them. In BJJ and in MMA there's the idea of "cooking" your opponent from mount. You just need to be heavy on them, and they spend all their energy trying to get out. It's a very efficient way to win a fight.

It's a good way to control someone until help arrives. For example, if you caught someone trying to steal and someone else called the cops, or if you are a cop and you're waiting on backup to help. One of my students recently got into a fight in school: the other kid swung at him, he took the kid down and held him down until teachers arrived. Got suspended, but both our Professor and the kid's father agreed that it was self-defense and that was good of him to do.

It's also good in situations where you need to safely control the other person, but don't want to hurt them. A teenager throwing a tantrum? You need to protect others and yourself, but you should protect them as well. Legend has it this was also a big reason behind the development from Judo to Aikido, is something that causes less harm when you take someone down.

There are definitely times when a take-down or control measure makes sense, but there are just as many and sometimes more risk involved. Assessment is vital and while a person who is very good at leverage can usually handle a larger, stronger person, the odds for something going awry are much higher. It can 'force' a more violent outcome and end up in an injury situation instead of a confinement/control situation. The level of commitment must be 100% or nothing. This is almost always where things go wrong. Think of the countless police videos where hands-on was done half-hearted and things got sideways real quick.

In my LEO days I made sure to keep a roughly 6' distance until I was certain I was going hands-on. Then things happened as fast as humanly possible, before the person could (hopefully) process was happening to them.
I had more than a few guys try to charge me, and the distance gave me the opportunity to react. The distance also gave me choices I would not have had in a closer setting. The big one that comes to mind is head control to facilitate an on top takedown (and a rather forceful position).
I did have change my thinking quite a lot however. Having a TKD background, outfighting is quite natural, but my tendency was to use my feet first which, of course, was no bueno.
Another Huge factor in close quarters for a LEO is the fact that you have (usually) at least two weapons that could be garnered by the perp and used against you. Personally, this is where I think it is a shame that officers can't use a PR24 or similar to maintain distance and as a deterrent.

There are a Ton of pressure point and leverage measures that the average LEO just doesn't have the time or resources to learn to a useful degree that can make All the difference in a take-down confinement situation. Being a smaller guy (especially when I was LEO) I utilized as many as possible and some rather unconventional situations did arise out of necessity. I truly worry for officers in today's climate. Between everything being on video and the liability attached, it doesn't appear they are allowed to go as 'hard' when going hands-on.

If you want to see a truly sad incident, watch this partial clip of a Nashville officer who was during a stop. There were SO many mistakes made. Nashville Officer Shot

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

The problems with the take down on the street arise when there is more than one potential opponent, or the opponent has a concealed weapon like a knife. I will always prefer a leg sweep if possible so that I can keep my feet and my distance. People often don’t even realize they have been stabbed until after.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The problems with the take down on the street arise when there is more than one potential opponent, or the opponent has a concealed weapon like a knife. I will always prefer a leg sweep if possible so that I can keep my feet and my distance. People often don’t even realize they have been stabbed until after.

This is one reason I initially teach my students most takedowns with a version that lets them stay standing while taking down the opponent. If you know how to take someone down and keep your balance to stay up, it's easy to learn how to go down with the opponent to a control position instead if the situation makes that appropriate. But if you only know how to take someone down and go down with them, then it's much harder to choose to stay standing if that is the better option.