Ear Slap as takedown defence

**Ponderer** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 3:19am

I read on the internet that wrestlers are used to being hit on the top of the head when they're doing a takedown. So this makes the hammer fist useless, doesn't it? When someone's executing a takedown, usually the top of his head and his ears are exposed, right? So the ear slap would be available as a move, right?

I heard an ear slap can rupture the eardrums and cause instant disorientation and loss of balance.

However, I'm not sure how useful this would be as a takedown defense.

Surely the wrestler doesn't need a sense of balance to take you down once he has grabbed one or both of your legs?

**Fuzzy** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 3:39am

Sprawl first, then try whatever crazy **** you want to try.

I seriously doubt you'd be able to co-ordinate an ear slap against a properly ballistic double-leg.

**Ponderer** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 3:54am

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Sprawl first, then try whatever crazy **** you want to try.

I seriously doubt you'd be able to co-ordinate an ear slap against a properly ballistic double-leg.

Is sprawling the only practical takedown defense? You need to coordinate both your arms and legs when sprawling, whereas with an ear slap you only need to bring your hands together. I don't understand why sprawling would be easier than an ear slap.

**Fuzzy** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:00am

It depends on the takedown and on who is doing it.

I'd say sprawling is a lot higher-percentage than the ear slap.

**JesusChrist** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:07am

Originally Posted by Ponderer

Is sprawling the only practical takedown defense?

No but it's probably the easiest.

Originally Posted by Ponderer

You need to coordinate both your arms and legs when sprawling, whereas with an ear slap you only need to bring your hands together. I don't understand why sprawling would be easier than an ear slap.

For the same reason it's generally impractical to try striking anywhere against a shoot. Occasionally you might land a strike to the back of the head, ears, or spine, but in that slight chance of hitting them you have an even slimmer chance that it will cause enough damage to stun the person shooting. If you can stuff the shoot by sprawling you have a much larger chance to actually land the strike in the first place and the security to not get dumped on your ass.

**doofaloofa** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:11am

I'd be too concerned about maiming my opponant to attempt to burst thier eardrums

**goodlun** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:17am

Originally Posted by Ponderer

Is sprawling the only practical takedown defense?

For what your calling a "takedown" the short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is its the highest percentile move to use.

Originally Posted by Ponderer

You need to coordinate both your arms and legs when sprawling, whereas with an ear slap you only need to bring your hands together. I don't understand why sprawling would be easier than an ear slap.

Let me introduce you to a physics concept called inertia.

To stop the takedown you have to stop the inertia. They are going to keep coming forward no matter how much you have hurt the guy.

**Ponderer** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:31am

Originally Posted by goodlun

For what your calling a "takedown" the short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is its the highest percentile move to use.

Let me introduce you to a physics concept called inertia.

To stop the takedown you have to stop the inertia. They are going to keep coming forward no matter how much you have hurt the guy.

But wait, I see that some attempted takedowns are foiled by a knee to the head.

So you don't have to completely nullify your enemy's momentum. You just have to knock him off balance.

Actually, is kneeing a good takedown defense, compared to sprawling? It seems more pre-emptive and prevents the whole issue with him having his arms around your legs.

**JohnKenner** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 4:57am

Originally Posted by Ponderer

But wait, I see that some attempted takedowns are foiled by a knee to the head.

So you don't have to completely nullify your enemy's momentum. You just have to knock him off balance.

Actually, is kneeing a good takedown defense, compared to sprawling? It seems more pre-emptive and prevents the whole issue with him having his arms around your legs.

No, its not.

Watch the UFC. Which do you see stop more takedowns - sprawling or striking?

It falls pretty heavily on the side of sprawling? Why? Because its not as precise (you're not aiming at a small, quickly moving target) and even if you **** up the sprawl you can still fight the takedown (if you miss the strike, you're basically just pwn3d).

Yes, there are guys that can do what you're saying, and execute it a majority of the time. But unless your name is either Chuck Liddell, or Andersen Silva, I recommend staying with the sprawl.

**Ponderer** · Posted On: 8/19/2012 5:20am

Originally Posted by JohnKenner

No, its not.

Watch the UFC. Which do you see stop more takedowns - sprawling or striking?

It falls pretty heavily on the side of sprawling? Why? Because its not as precise (you're not aiming at a small, quickly moving target) and even if you **** up the sprawl you can still fight the takedown (if you miss the strike, you're basically just pwn3d).

Yes, there are guys that can do what you're saying, and execute it a majority of the time. But unless your name is either Chuck Liddell, or Andersen Silva, I recommend staying with the sprawl.

But kneeing has a greater potential for ending the fight than sprawling, doesn't it?
Doesn't it just mean that we should practice kneeing until we can use it as proficiently as Silva?