Would this work?

[K-man]

Like I said, I don't buy the idea that this is actually defense against a downed opponent going for a gun. If it were, you wouldn't kick the guy in the throat, and then chase his rolling body down and continue to beat on him. You would kick him in the throat and go for the gun.

If you really buy that this is a legitimate defense against a person reaching for the gun, then please explain the point of the chest stomp and the neck crank?

If that followup is something to do against an unarmed assailant, then that followup is still ridiculous, because the kick, stomp, and crank are pretty unreliable methods to disable someone. Maybe if you're as big as Tony they're not, but someone smaller? Good luck cranking a bigger guy's neck like that, even if they're laying on their back.

So what you are saying is that you didn't actually say what you claimed you had said?

So go back and watch the video. Listen to what Tony says the point of the lesson is. You are missing that. The point is, as a lot of us teach, don't fixate on the weapon. Destroy the attacker. In real life it is not like you playing around in the ring. On the street your life may depend on such a situation as this. Make the wrong choice and you could be dead.

The point of the chest stomp was as ballen said, ensuring the attacker was no longer a risk. In a real situation would Tony have done that or picked up the gun? I would have thought that he would still have disabled the attacker as he doesn't know if the gun is loaded or that it isn't an imitation. Would he have done the neck crank? Who know? He is demonstrating that you always have a follow up available.

If the guy is on all fours and unarmed, I'm going to choke him out. Only way to be sure. Ironically, the assailant laying on his back is more dangerous than him on all fours.

If he's reaching for a gun, I'd probably do what Tony did and kick him, (except with a soccer kick to the head or face, not a throat kick) as hard as I can, and then go for the gun. Like I said, if he's still coming at me at that point, I'm shooting him.

What you really mean is that you will attempt to choke him out. Only way? You have no idea whether or not he is a more competent grappler than you but you are prepared to bet your life on it. Really? On the street that is an ego trip likely to get you killed.

Now I hate to disagree with you but what you are saying makes no sense to anyone with any training in this area. Why would you ever attempt a soccer kick to the face? All he has to do is lift his shoulder and your kick is going to slide past. Even if he just turns his head your kick may well slide off. Tony is kicking into the 'V' of his shoulder and neck, much less chance of missing.

 

[Transk53]

So what you are saying is that you didn't actually say what you claimed you had said?

So go back and watch the video. Listen to what Tony says the point of the lesson is. You are missing that. The point is, as a lot of us teach, don't fixate on the weapon. Destroy the attacker. In real life it is not like you playing around in the ring. On the street your life may depend on such a situation as this. Make the wrong choice and you could be dead.

The point of the chest stomp was as ballen said, ensuring the attacker was no longer a risk. In a real situation would Tony have done that or picked up the gun? I would have thought that he would still have disabled the attacker as he doesn't know if the gun is loaded or that it isn't an imitation. Would he have done the neck crank? Who know? He is demonstrating that you always have a follow up available.

What you really mean is that you will attempt to choke him out. Only way? You have no idea whether or not he is a more competent grappler than you but you are prepared to bet your life on it. Really. On the street that is an ego trip likely to get you killed.

Now I hate to disagree with you but what you are saying makes no sense to anyone with any training in this area. Why would you ever attempt a soccer kick to the face? All he has to do is lift his shoulder and your kick is going to slide past. Even if he just turns his head your kick may well slide off. Tony is kicking into the 'V' of his shoulder and neck, much less chance of missing.

Must be why I did not get it. Could not view the vid, had to guess.

 

[Steve]

Ballen shared a story recently where he was facing a lot of potential attackers. I recall him mention specifically addressing the gun. Iirc, he made a point of kicking it under a car so that it was not a threat to him.

Now you're saying he agrees with you that you destroy the attacker and don't fixate on the weapon. Some attention to both seems more appropropriate, and im guessing that most people would agree. Maybe not.

 

[ballen0351]

Ballen shared a story recently where he was facing a lot of potential attackers. I recall him mention specifically addressing the gun. Iirc, he made a point of kicking it under a car so that it was not a threat to him.

Now you're saying he agrees with you that you destroy the attacker and don't fixate on the weapon. Some attention to both seems more appropropriate, and im guessing that most people would agree. Maybe not.

It totally would depend on the situation. Had it been one or two attackers I'd have picked up the gun and secured it. I'm comfortable enough to keep two guys away from me long enough to tuck the gun in my belt or something. With the crowd that large all I had time to do was move the gun and even then it wasn't the smartest move. Also had there not been a car there I'd have to of come up with a new plan quickly. One on one I'd always address the man first because a gun can't hurt me laying on the ground by itself.

 

[Steve]

Sounds reasonable, ballen. Either way, you're accounting for the weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

Sounds reasonable, ballen. Either way, you're accounting for the weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So is the original video. If not for the weapon kicking a guy on the ground like that would be criminal in my opinion

 

[Steve]

I think the video acknowledges the weapon, but kman suggested that the lesson is to destroy the attacker and not fixate on the weapon. He brought your name into it.

My position is that you really have to keep both in mind. Focusing on destroying the attacker could lead to losing track of the weapon. Vice versa is also true.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tshadowchaser]

personally unless I had many witnesses that I knew with out any doubt would back me up in court I would not want any of my prints on the gun. And if no one there was going to help me out at the moment I would not be counting on their testimony in a court.
AS for choking the guy on the ground out why take the chance that he knows or dose not know more than you. Heck kick the crap out of him or as has been said try to kick the gun away but mostly get out of harms way as fast as possible. As for that neck kick, well, the body is an easier target, even stomping the hand or arm
Why put your body down to a body to body level unless you one of the best in the world or special opps trained

 

[ballen0351]

I think the video acknowledges the weapon, but kman suggested that the lesson is to destroy the attacker and not fixate on the weapon. He brought your name into it.

My position is that you really have to keep both in mind. Focusing on destroying the attacker could lead to losing track of the weapon. Vice versa is also true.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree you can't destroy the attacker absent the gun or you will find yourself in court trying to justify why you did what you did. The gun totally changes your response in my opinion. I can be much more violent in my attack because of the gun. Remove it and we'll I'd scale back my attack greatly or face prision time

 

[Hanzou]

So what you are saying is that you didn't actually say what you claimed you had said?

Where did I say that?

So go back and watch the video. Listen to what Tony says the point of the lesson is. You are missing that. The point is, as a lot of us teach, don't fixate on the weapon. Destroy the attacker. In real life it is not like you playing around in the ring. On the street your life may depend on such a situation as this. Make the wrong choice and you could be dead.

Attempting to follow up a throat kick with a chest stomp and a neck crank is probably the wrong choice when a gun is laying around. Honestly, it could be the wrong choice when a gun isn't in play. All three of those attacks are pretty low percentage.

The point of the chest stomp was as ballen said, ensuring the attacker was no longer a risk. In a real situation would Tony have done that or picked up the gun? I would have thought that he would still have disabled the attacker as he doesn't know if the gun is loaded or that it isn't an imitation. Would he have done the neck crank? Who know? He is demonstrating that you always have a follow up available.

Really? If the chest stop ensured that the attacker was out of commission, why did he do a neck crank afterwards?

What you really mean is that you will attempt to choke him out. Only way? You have no idea whether or not he is a more competent grappler than you but you are prepared to bet your life on it. Really? On the street that is an ego trip likely to get you killed.

Assuming he is a better grappler, slapping a choke with him on all fours is far less risky than attempting a chest stomp or a standing neck crank with him on his back. If he's a better grappler, you don't want him on his back under any circumstances.

Now I hate to disagree with you but what you are saying makes no sense to anyone with any training in this area. Why would you ever attempt a soccer kick to the face? All he has to do is lift his shoulder and your kick is going to slide past. Even if he just turns his head your kick may well slide off. Tony is kicking into the 'V' of his shoulder and neck, much less chance of missing.

So let me get this straight; You're arguing that with your opponent on all fours, the head is an easier target to miss than the neck?

 

[drop bear]

So how would you handle it?

i would just give him his gun back. Obviously the guy had just tripped over at the shooting range.

 

[drop bear]

So why train at all?

to be a bit less flawed. This is why you will hear the term low percentage/high percentage.

and not works/doesn't work.

 

[Transk53]

i would just give him his gun back. Obviously the guy had just tripped over at the shooting range.

Tripped over, lost his cool?

 

[drop bear]

So what you are saying is that you didn't actually say what you claimed you had said?

So go back and watch the video. Listen to what Tony says the point of the lesson is. You are missing that. The point is, as a lot of us teach, don't fixate on the weapon. Destroy the attacker. In real life it is not like you playing around in the ring. On the street your life may depend on such a situation as this. Make the wrong choice and you could be dead.

The point of the chest stomp was as ballen said, ensuring the attacker was no longer a risk. In a real situation would Tony have done that or picked up the gun? I would have thought that he would still have disabled the attacker as he doesn't know if the gun is loaded or that it isn't an imitation. Would he have done the neck crank? Who know? He is demonstrating that you always have a follow up available.

What you really mean is that you will attempt to choke him out. Only way? You have no idea whether or not he is a more competent grappler than you but you are prepared to bet your life on it. Really? On the street that is an ego trip likely to get you killed.

Now I hate to disagree with you but what you are saying makes no sense to anyone with any training in this area. Why would you ever attempt a soccer kick to the face? All he has to do is lift his shoulder and your kick is going to slide past. Even if he just turns his head your kick may well slide off. Tony is kicking into the 'V' of his shoulder and neck, much less chance of missing.

so in the hypothetical the kick is going to work and the choke may not.

is that just because one supports your argument and one doesn't.

why doesn't focusing on the gun work?

if he is reaching for that gun and can wear that kick,defend that choke dodge the plus ten sword of delight. Then you would be in a bit of trouble.

hypothetical offs are ridiculous for exactly this reason.

 

[ballen0351]

i would just give him his gun back. Obviously the guy had just tripped over at the shooting range.

Quit trolling

 

[K-man]

so in the hypothetical the kick is going to work and the choke may not.

is that just because one supports your argument and one doesn't.

why doesn't focusing on the gun work?

if he is reaching for that gun and can wear that kick,defend that choke dodge the plus ten sword of delight. Then you would be in a bit of trouble.

hypothetical offs are ridiculous for exactly this reason.

Thank you for pointing out my training is ridiculous. I suppose we may as well stop all reality style training and start something else. What do you suggest, knitting? Get a life, you are bagging our training and it is something you don't even do. After answering Hanzou, I'm out of this thread before I say something I could regret.

 

[drop bear]

Quit trolling

you are trying to suggest that you can decide what happens in this scenario and what doesn't. Why cant i?

that is how hypotheticals work. You wanted to go down this path. And now you don't like where it leads?

 

[drop bear]

Thank you for pointing out my training is ridiculous. I suppose we may as well stop all reality style training and start something else. What do you suggest, knitting? Get a life, you are bagging our training and it is something you don't even do. After answering Hanzou, I'm out of this thread before I say something I could regret.

no i am not. You are desperately trying to be a victim again.

and considering you threw in a real world not sport comment yourself. You have no legs to stand on.

you said the kick will work and the choke will not. Considering either could be scenario trained. I don't see how that is a slight on the training itself.

 

[K-man]

Where did I say that?

I asked you a direct question as to where you had posted what you claimed to have posted. As you didn't answer that but kept talking along the same vein, I assumed you agreed.

Attempting to follow up a throat kick with a chest stomp and a neck crank is probably the wrong choice when a gun is laying around. Honestly, it could be the wrong choice when a gun isn't in play. All three of those attacks are pretty low percentage.

Perhaps that's why he didn't do it.

For you a shin to the neck or a knee to the head might be low percentage. We train that sort of technique all the time. Stomp to the chest following a takedown is bread and butter in Karate and Krav, again a finishing technique we train almost every time. Why do you constantly query the training of everyone who doesn't do BJJ or MMA? Or are you just trying to generate a chuckle like you did in other threads?

Really? If the chest stop ensured that the attacker was out of commission, why did he do a neck crank afterwards?

Obviously it is just an option. Would he have done that in real life? Obviously that would depend on the situation, but why do I need to explain that. It was explained in the video.

Assuming he is a better grappler, slapping a choke with him on all fours is far less risky than attempting a chest stomp or a standing neck crank with him on his back. If he's a better grappler, you don't want him on his back under any circumstances.

Your opinion! I have no idea what background Tim Larkin's clients have but I would be pretty confident grappling would not be prevalent. His market is similar to Krav and Systema.

After a kick to the neck or a knee to the head, if that was powerful enough to roll the guy to his back, I don't think you would have any problem finishing with a stomp. A neck crank like that wouldn't be my choice but you use what you train.

So let me get this straight; You're arguing that with your opponent on all fours, the head is an easier target to miss than the neck?

Certainly. All it takes is a shrug of the shoulder and you would miss or at least have the power of the kick severely reduced, again, something we train regularly but obviously not a part of BJJ.

Now I'm out of this thread because you sport guys obviously know far more about these things than those of us who actually train for it.

 

[K-man]

no i am not. You are desperately trying to be a victim again.

and considering you threw in a real world not sport comment yourself. You have no legs to stand on.

you said the kick will work and the choke will not. Considering either could be scenario trained. I don't see how that is a slight on the training itself.

I'm not a victim. I just can't cope with this much bulls#|t. And seeing that I never said a choke would not work it's obvious that you aren't bothering to read what is being posted. If I had a BJJ background I might think differently but for most MAs, going to the ground should not be first option and for people with little training it is not an option. Now, as I've said, I'm out of here.