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.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

I agree 100% with this. My martial art is primarily a striking art, but with a focus on balance, posture, and coordination to exploit those of the opponent. I have a personal preference for leg sweeps and low leg attacks while standing, but I don’t necessarily teach it that way. We tend to like the things we are naturally good at.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

stay standing while taking down the opponent.

Take down and take off is a good strategy.

Get back up ASAP is also a good strategy.



Remain balance during the throw is an important training.

 

[seasoned]

Okinawan karate, particuiarly in styles like Goju-ryu incorporates techniques like joint locks, grappling, takedowns, and throws. The objective is not rhe takedown but if the neerd presents itself it is done with grabs, locks, unbalancing with the takedown while keeping controi of that person following with stomp kicks downward reverse punches.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Okinawan karate, particuiarly in styles like Goju-ryu incorporates techniques like joint locks, grappling, takedowns, and throws. The objective is not rhe takedown but if the neerd presents itself it is done with grabs, locks, unbalancing with the takedown while keeping controi of that person following with stomp kicks downward reverse punches.

Back in full contact Karate time, a takedown won't give you any point. But a follow up strike will.

 

[Sammy Naur]

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

I was going to write a detailed response to @isshinryuronin but I liked your very concise answer.

This is party of the fundamental problem with a lot of martial theorycrafting online. There is so much pontification over these false dualities, when reality is fights are always in the moment, and fast.

So of course, as a pretty competent boxer and wrestler, I'm going to prefer to take you down for a list of reasons (e.g. I don't want to get hit in the face and controlling you is going to be preferable).

But I might not even have to take you down, because clinching you might solve the whole problem (e.g., if someone comes in at you, a nice firm clinch is better than a firm handshake, it has more de-escalation value than most people realize).

Compared to a lot of martial arts yahoos who think they're going to pull off some crazy move and disable you outright....I'd have to say standup wrestling, ground wrestling, boxing, in that order solves most fights with those types of people, because the truth is most of them have never actually fought, or been in a physical conflict where they ever learned to maintain their own self control, let alone control of another.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But I might not even have to take you down, because clinching you might solve the whole problem (e.g., if someone comes in at you, a nice firm clinch is better than a firm handshake, it has more de-escalation value than most people realize).

Agree with you 100% there. An effective clinch can be more civilized than a take down.

One time I met a WC master. We started to talk about "wrong Bong - use right Bone Shou to block right punch". He disagreed with me and said wrong Bong has value.

- I threw a right punch toward his face. He used right Bong Shou to block my punch.
- I slid my right hand to his wrist, use left hand to push up his right elbow joint.
- He dropped his right elbow and threw a left punch toward my face.
- I slid my left hand to his right wrist, free my right hand. My right hand then grabbed on his left wrist.
- I used my right arm to pin his left arm against his own right arm on his chest.

He tried to break my clinch and failed. I released my clinch. Nobody got hurt. Everybody still live happy ever after.

To use opponent's one arm to jam his other arm can be a civilized clinch. You have shown your opponent that you have no desire to hurt him. If your opponent can feel your grip strength, he may not have desire to fight you after that.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I was going to write a detailed response to @isshinryuronin but I liked your very concise answer.

This is party of the fundamental problem with a lot of martial theorycrafting online. There is so much pontification over these false dualities, when reality is fights are always in the moment, and fast.

So of course, as a pretty competent boxer and wrestler, I'm going to prefer to take you down for a list of reasons (e.g. I don't want to get hit in the face and controlling you is going to be preferable).

But I might not even have to take you down, because clinching you might solve the whole problem (e.g., if someone comes in at you, a nice firm clinch is better than a firm handshake, it has more de-escalation value than most people realize).

Compared to a lot of martial arts yahoos who think they're going to pull off some crazy move and disable you outright....I'd have to say standup wrestling, ground wrestling, boxing, in that order solves most fights with those types of people, because the truth is most of them have never actually fought, or been in a physical conflict where they ever learned to maintain their own self control, let alone control of another.

I agree, most of the aggressors in public don’t have the experience, nor the training to be very effective in a hand to hand situation, the main issue is weapons. The crazy move they will pull is a trigger, don’t get too cocky with what you may visually perceive as weak, or unable.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, most of the aggressors in public don’t have the experience, nor the training to be very effective in a hand to hand situation, the main issue is weapons. The crazy move they will pull is a trigger, don’t get too cocky with what you may visually perceive as weak, or unable.

You can clinch in a way that limits the ability of the other guy to pull a weapon. Underhook, wrist or underhook, bicept.

There are dynamic entries that get you in to that position. And there are some nice body locks, back takes and takedowns from that position.

Then you also have the advantage in striking.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, most of the aggressors in public don’t have the experience, nor the training to be very effective in a hand to hand situation, the main issue is weapons. The crazy move they will pull is a trigger, don’t get too cocky with what you may visually perceive as weak, or unable.

The knee bump takedown.

Note he gets the dagestani handcuff. If he has his own knife or gun or just likes to bash people. He can use that to free up his hand in the clinch. While the other guy still has 2 hands occupied.

He can hang on to that position on the ground and still tie up both arms on the other guy. Or just smash him down and run off. Or kick him in the head or something.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, most of the aggressors in public don’t have the experience, nor the training to be very effective in a hand to hand situation, the main issue is weapons. The crazy move they will pull is a trigger, don’t get too cocky with what you may visually perceive as weak, or unable.

Off the overhook. That ankle pick.

Now he doesn't have that other hand. But if you were prioritising weapons you could grab it.

And he will struggle to take your back. Like from a hip toss or something.

And back to my original point. If you got that strong overhook. A person completely untrained would beat a pro boxer in a boxing match from there.

You just rabbit punch his face off.

This is a bad news position for a striker.

 

[isshinryuronin]

There were a number of good responses that would be good for some, but not others. Much depends on one's training it seems, so hard to come to an objective consensus. Some maintain you have more control on the ground, but control does not win fights against a determined foe. At some point, he must be disabled allowing you to disengage - eventually you will have to go pee or pick up the kids. And there are risks as my post presented as well as others:

There are definitely times when a take-down or control measure makes sense, but there are just as many and sometimes more risk involved.,,,Think of the countless police videos where hands-on was done half-hearted and things got sideways real quick.

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.

IMO, getting entangled with the opponent is often risky unless one is a skilled grappler, which I'm not, but others here are. It seems personal bias based on skill set is hard to avoid, perhaps rightly so. The following matches my personal (and perhaps biased) view:

The objective is not rhe takedown but if the neerd presents itself it is done with grabs, locks, unbalancing with the takedown while keeping controi of that person following with stomp kicks downward reverse punches.

I would not "chase" a takedown or see it as a primary objective, but if the opponent gives me an easy and low risk opportunity, I would not refuse - not to control, but to aid in the immediate delivery of a finishing strike of some sort. That's my end game. I actually like takedowns (and fairly good at them) but would employ them only as described.