I'm not talking about scenarios where you learn specific techniques, I'm talking about sparring where you have a different objective (I.e get out the door). To put it simply one guy wins by getting out of the room and the other guy winds by stabbing him, I'm not talking about "Imagine this guy has a knife, now imagine he steps towards you with an overhand downward strike, do x technique to block and escape". I'm saying practice escaping a knife armed fully resisting opponent like you practice to overcome an unarmed guy when you do normal sparring.
Originally Posted by Lefty
Oh and I'm not saying this replaces sparring against someone with a knife, it's just something to add to it.
What does that video say? Don't horribly suck at fighting, then pick a fight would be my guess.
suggestion for the FAQ:
Might it be worthwhile to add an analogy to this that it's for the same reason stikers train with gloves, even thought they might not actually be wearing gloves in a self defence situation, on the ninja infested street?
Originally Posted by hedgehogey
Read through 17 pages just to make sure that I'm not repeating something that has already been said, but maybe I missed it. In any case:
In Regards to Attempting a Knee Strike Against a Shot:
I've had both good and bad experiences with this. First, the most obvious reason that the knee is not the ultimate shot defense. As noted earlier, most shots come in from close range and/or following a setup strike. There is limited time to throw a good knee strike; using your back leg could take too long (if he gets to you before the knee is on target, you'll have no power) and your front leg will lack power. That said, putting a knee between yourself and the shooting grappler is a big mistake for the most obvious reason: you've just compromised your base. With one leg off of the ground, you're a sitting duck in regards to takedowns.
Just to make sure that I wasn't simply rationalizing it or using common sense, I attempted the knee defense in a full contact spar (equipment consisting of helmets and gloves.) At the best of times, I stopped the shot dead, but it was not a counter that gave me any advantage. At worst (and this happened far, far more often) I ended up on my back, or lifted and dropped. One particularly bad time, an attempted knee defense led to me getting caught in a high single leg followed by a leg reap.
On the offensive side, most of the knee attempts used against me failed. Those that landed tended to hit my shoulders, definitely not enough of a deterrent to stop the takedown attempt. So, at worst I caught a knee to the shoulder, once I was clipped slightly in the head. At best, though, my sparring partner was being driven into the mat. Of course, there was one attempt that outshined the others: instead of attempting a single or double leg, I shot in for an ankle pick. My partner attempted a knee with the other leg, and ended up with his mouth and knee in the mat.
Conclusion? Even for a striker, sprawling out and throwing a hard forearm strike into a crossface is infinitely more effective than an attempted knee strike will ever be, unless you are just that damn good enough to catch a shooter in the chin with your knee all the time.
Isn't a counter or grappling defence really anti-grappling?
maybe I'm just mentally masturbating with words here but I would imagine any technique such as sprawling used to counter another person's grappling technique and counter with your own or reverse it would be "anti-grappling".
Isn't it misleading to say there is no "anti-grappling" when all grappling systems show you how to escape or reverse holds?
I think that is a good Idea, but you should also include that just like wearing gloves there are differences and address the actual effect of those differences so people don't exaggerate them to be two different animals.
Originally Posted by schmoo
Unless it is a throw, I know I would be more likely to "pull my force" from a takedown on a harder surface just like a boxer can deliver more power with taped or wrapped wrists without worrying about damaging thier hands. They might be miniscule differences (between gloves/no gloves, matt/hard surface) but often if you mention it and explain, it will diffuse any arguments anyone may have with the point made in the faq so it doesn't become a heated discussion. I would imagine your goal is not only to provide accurate info, but to not have someone bring up the same raggedy points every day. Mentioning the difference, and addressing it, might save time and aggrivation of people claiming it is "flawed" and using that as an argument.
I might train xingyi now, but I practiced hs (folkstyle) in jr high and high school and trained in freestyle as well during hs. We did play on non-matted floors when not officially in practice such like carpet, weight room rubber link flooring, the basketball court (indoor) that I can remember.
Why is a grappling faq in the striking section or is the separation of technique sections really just suggested?
Last edited by Bluto Blutarsky; 5/11/2006 12:26pm at .
I had assumed that "anti-grappling" referred to techniques that strikers could use to nullify grappling and keep the fight from ever going to the ground. With that in mind, sprawling is the only technique I can think of that counters a takedown and doesn't necessarily go to the ground. Anti-grappling strikes of bullshit, of course, none have been proven to work consistantly or even most of the time.
Originally Posted by Bluto Blutarsky
thanks, aside from the old "punch the back of the neck" routine, I don't recall hearing of anything. Maybe I have, just don't recall it right now.