Kung Fu, Grappling and Cliches'

**SifuJason** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 6:10pm

Originally Posted by new2bjj

How many times have you taken out multiple opponents? It's a lot easier said then done. Before people started doing demo's, the idea of fighting several guys was out of the question.You night hit a few and escape, but it's freaking rare that you hear of anyone on the news disabling 3 to 4 attackers. If they did, it'd be on the news. As soon as a decent street fighter crouches a little, that knee cap is flexed, and it's not snapping- watch any Muay Thai matches? People aren't made of silly putty- they have muscle and tendons surrounding there bones, and their bodies are jacked on adrenaline. Now, if you kick some guy while he's talking, etc, that might be a different story.

Well, to get my black belt in WHKD, you have to fight 10 lower belts at once at heavy contact. Disabling strikes (ie kicks to the knees, etc) are done at low contact and if they land the person acts as if they were injured. In a real fight, I have luckily only had 1 on 1 situations thus far. My Sifu has made the news though.

As for knee caps, it doesn't matter if it's flexed. A side kick to the side of the knee (Which is what I am talking about), will destroy anyone's LCL and prbably their PCL and lateral meniscus as well, or so medical school and physics have told me. Also, the knee doesn't have much muscle supportingi t, it's almost all ligaments--again, having dissected a knee I can attest to this.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 6:45pm

Originally Posted by wakinonioi

I think that a common misconception is that 'going to the ground' means jumping into guard only. Being 'on the ground' in top position with control over your opponent and the ability to move off where and when you want is in some cases much more desireable than just tossing them a few feet off where they are out of contact with you and unless you have somehow knocked them shitless in the process, you are just gonna have to go through it all over again.

Most hip throws involve you keeping contact through the arm even after the throw. And traditional japanes jiu-jitsu teaches to keep them close and follow up with something nice like a stomping kick to the mid section

being a nice guy I know a standing arm lock thats good to use on someone lying in front of you.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 6:49pm

Originally Posted by SifuJason

Well, to get my black belt in WHKD, you have to fight 10 lower belts at once at heavy contact. Disabling strikes (ie kicks to the knees, etc) are done at low contact and if they land the person acts as if they were injured. In a real fight, I have luckily only had 1 on 1 situations thus far. My Sifu has made the news though.

As for knee caps, it doesn't matter if it's flexed. A side kick to the side of the knee (Which is what I am talking about), will destroy anyone's LCL and prbably their PCL and lateral meniscus as well, or so medical school and physics have told me. Also, the knee doesn't have much muscle supportingi t, it's almost all ligaments--again, having dissected a knee I can attest to this.

I avoid the multiple attacker scenario in discussions because ultimately they don't really prove anything. A multi attacker scanrio has too many variables to prove any hard or fats rules. Multiple attackers may be dealt with strikes. Or they could be dealt with throws a la Aikdo idea of head control and rotation to throw people into each other.

But a lot depends on the people attacking you, their skill and determination.

So at the end of the day it neither proves nor disproves anything and is a dead end issue.

**Mut Sao** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 7:06pm

I think that a common misconception is that 'going to the ground' means jumping into guard only. Being 'on the ground' in top position with control over your opponent and the ability to move off where and when you want is in some cases much more desireable than just tossing them a few feet off where they are out of contact with you and unless you have somehow knocked them shitless in the process, you are just gonna have to go through it all over again.

personally i think this is a big part of the problem.... personally i don't really concider getting a kneeride and smashing face as going to the ground.... nor several of the variations of that idea. Basically to me going to the ground is off your feet and down.... usually (but not exclusively) in some form of grapple.... however gaining the mount directly from the throw and striking probably would being going to the ground.... though if the mount does not impede your ability to get up and out it is not so bad ... I guess i concider going to the ground as either 1 guy thrown down or 2 guys going down and being interlocked in such a way to really hamper mobility. (think unable to perform the great ninja flip off here:XXjester: )

**Hedgehogey** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 7:18pm

Well, to get my black belt in WHKD, you have to fight 10 lower belts at once at heavy contact. Disabling strikes (ie kicks to the knees, etc) are done at low contact and if they land the person acts as if they were injured.

**Teh El Macho** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 7:19pm

Originally Posted by dwhomp

Ok, I will play Devil's Advocate...

there is a huge amount of similiarity in the language being used with other MA annoyances here...

"Yes, I train grappling and groundfighting, but I would NEVER want to be on the ground in a real fight. If I was in a real fight I would throw them to the ground and smack them from there"

Sounds awfully similiar to:

"Yes, I train point fighting, but if I was ever in a real fight, I would use my real life strikes and kicks that I cant use in point fighting"

It is not a light switch.

The problem with your analogy is that

1. many grapplers cross-train with (or have a background in) MMA or some other standup art (boxing, kickboxing, etc) or are BJJers with a background in wrestling or judo where throwing the **** out of people is the bread and butter. So they are not making up theories our of thin air. They are talking about experience.

2. you still ignore the fact that grappling and groundfighting involves throwing them to the ground. Throwing somebody down with an osoto gari or seoi nage while remaining standing and applying an armbar is part of the training. If you are in a position to do that armbar, you are in a position to soccer kick him (see #1). If you have the ability to pick somebody up, you can drop them on their heads. This is not theory - it's fact. In training, when you pick somebody up, you gently (more or less) put them down in a controlled manner and move to get control.

This is a LOT more difficult than just dropping them. Again, this is not theory. It's fact.

3. you ignore the fact that groundfighting is about training to avoid a vulnerable position in the ground (see #2 and then #1).

The best way to find out if these three points are true or false is just to spend 6 months in BJJ, Judo or MMA. You'll see that this is not a light switch.

Your analogy is true only for those who strictly train in sports BJJ (gi) with a choice of not training in anything else AND still think they can flip the light switch.

There are those who choose to train in sports BJJ only, but I doubt they would be delusional to think their training is enough. They make a concious decision and know their limitations. So far, I don't know a single one with such a delusion.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 7:35pm

Originally Posted by dwhomp

Ok, I will play Devil's Advocate...

there is a huge amount of similiarity in the language being used with other MA annoyances here...

"Yes, I train grappling and groundfighting, but I would NEVER want to be on the ground in a real fight. If I was in a real fight I would throw them to the ground and smack them from there"

Sounds awfully similiar to:

"Yes, I train point fighting, but if I was ever in a real fight, I would use my real life strikes and kicks that I cant use in point fighting"

It is not a light switch.

You fail at logic. For your analogy to make sense, the second phrase would have to be "I train point fighting in case someone point fights with me, even though I concede point fighting would be unpleasant"

You appear to be trying to say to these judoka and bjj people that when they say they could do a hip throw in real life (a throw they do every day in class), they're tatamount to people that train for point fighting and say that in a self defense situation they would do something they DON'T train often or hard - you see the problem with that?

For your first quote to be analogous to your second (as your second is currently written), the techniques the grappler uses to come out on top would have to be techniques he doesn't train in class.

No one's saying that. Superior takedowns and groundwork let you in and out of clinches and grapples. If you're a better groundfighter or judo fighter then someone, you dictate their ability to grapple with you. Knowing how to grapple is germaine to multiple opponent encounters not because you're going to submit them sequentially, but because it's key to staying OUT of that situation where you're pinned on the ground and his buddies stomp you.

This whole argument, by the way, is dumb, becuse its 2007 and if you don't train at a school that does ground and standup, you aren't a complete fighter.

**Lu Tze** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 8:09pm

Am I the only one who sees no problem with landing hard on some fucker's ribs with my hip, elbow or knee after a throw?

Okay, so you're vulnerable for a few seconds while you're getting back up, buts it's not like you can't get up quickly from there, you're still somewhat upright and your feet are more or less still on the ground. If his friends are close enough to capitalise on it then obviously it's not a good idea, but if they're that close and swinging you're fucked anyway.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 8:13pm

I don't think anyone is saying it's a problem just more pointing out that graplpers don't have to follow the throw down to the ground like many non-grapplers assume.

**Omar** · Posted On: 2/19/2007 10:41pm

Originally Posted by GoJu - Joe

A lot of times people talk about grappling and street defense with the impressoin that a grappler will automatically grab the guy and go to the ground looking for a sub or groaund and ppund. Grappling arts like Judo and wrestling have great throws. So if in a street situation I grab someone and hip toss them hard so they land badly on the pavment they're on the ground and I am still standing.

that's all I meant.

I'm with both Joe and Waki on this.

Am I the only one who say the high amplitude head spike in an MMA match on youtube last week? That was a fight ender for sure and that's the ultimate goal of Chinese SC (pure throwing) My own teachers throws are usually combined with joint locks. That squares with the SC philosophy of lock--->throw as opposed to the apparent western/MMA philisophy of throw--->lock. He can pretty much guarantee you break something on the way down. It might "only" be your wrist and elbow but the only way you get to roll out of one of his throws is when he lets you.

I assume it's the same with a good wrestler or Judoka. You let go of the guy half way through in practice so that he can breakfall properly or roll out. Now you COULD go the Waki way and drive into him and I've experienced that in a Judo class. a BJJ dude was taking the class at my University just for kicks and in randori with him at one point he shouder threw me and landed on top of me with his shoulder into my ribs which were opened up on account of reaching out to the sides to slap the mat for my breakfall. I am about 80% sure he cracked something but I will never know because I was uninsured so I just had to tough it out for the next 3 weeks or so untill the pain while doing anything like uh....breathing....subsided. OTOH, my current teacher will never do that. He will tangle up your arms so that if he doesn't release something during the throw, something gets broken. You can tell because it usually feels like you are about to get something dislocated or torn BEFORE the throw. The throw is actually a relief because it means he's letting you go.

I can see merit to both approaches. I obviously prefer the latter. That's why I'm studying it but I have experienced the former and can testify to its effect.