Page 6 of 6 First ... 23456
  1. #51
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,824
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    The benefit in this version of the throw, for me, is the control of the hips. It's never going to be a powerful throw (and I've never had an issue being trapped underneath as you are still on the side). But what it does do is get your opponent to the ground while you're stuck to their hips. This gives you the option of keeping them turned away from you long enough to establish a good side control etc. or come up on top.
    Right, so it becomes more of a "skillful entry to groundwork" rather than a "throw". That's in judo terms, not really general grappling terms. Just wrapping a guys waste and dragging him backwards isn't Tani Otoshi.

    Not that it really matters.
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  2. #52

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    77
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    The primary issue (other than ripping knees) upon landing is to not get reversed on the way down. That would tend to happen because tori falls straight back instead of onto his side (it's a side-sacrifice throw).

    It's not impossible for a agile uke to turn out and reverse onto tori, in fact, it's fairly common. Or tori scores and uke ends up spinning towards him and pinning...
    Yep, that is my main concern as well. Seen it happen way too often.

    If you are in the position shown in the clip and want to go straight back, a clean suplex into bridge position and working from there is doing more damage, safer, and better securing the position in the back imho. Especially if it is used as transition to the sub/hold, (slight) side position is more powerful and safer than what is shown.

    Regarding slipping vs. hooking the ankle: first more power and better form, second more control. Which one's preferable depends on how well the drop and shift put the opponent off balance already. If you have a good tai sabaki and hip control, I prefer hooking (in fights).

    But that's just me.

  3. #53
    cualltaigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cooltown, SEQ
    Posts
    1,783
    Style
    BJJ, MMA
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    Right, so it becomes more of a "skillful entry to groundwork" rather than a "throw". That's in judo terms, not really general grappling terms.
    Exactly, it's more of a takedown than what Judo would classify as a throw.

    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    Just wrapping a guys waste and dragging him backwards isn't Tani Otoshi.
    Agreed. Fortunately that isn't what is being demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    The primary issue (other than ripping knees) upon landing is to not get reversed on the way down. That would tend to happen because tori falls straight back instead of onto his side (it's a side-sacrifice throw).

    It's not impossible for a agile uke to turn out and reverse onto tori, in fact, it's fairly common. Or tori scores and uke ends up spinning towards him and pinning...
    Well there are two things preventing that in the technique demonstrated.

    The first is proper hip control. He's not merely grabbing the waist but locking the hips (pelvis) in against his chest (with additional pressure applied with the head). Uke can neither turn away nor in without tori releasing/losing his control.

    The second is he's not falling straight back, but falling to the side (as with a standard tani otoshi). You'll see tori drop his weight first under then out to the side of uke. Coupled with the hip control (above) you'll see uke turning as he falls to land on his side facing away from tori.
    Dum spiro, spero.
    Tada gan iarracht.

  4. #54
    cualltaigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cooltown, SEQ
    Posts
    1,783
    Style
    BJJ, MMA
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    If you are in the position shown in the clip and want to go straight back, a clean suplex into bridge position and working from there is doing more damage, safer, and better securing the position in the back imho. Especially if it is used as transition to the sub/hold, (slight) side position is more powerful and safer than what is shown.
    Suplex can be an option from there but you should always have more than one. Especially if they are bigger than you, you're tired or they are already dropping their weight low. A suplex would also not be allowed in no-gi BJJ (if they land on their head/shoulders).

    Again, this throw is also not going straight back but to the side, landing with uke on their side facing away from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    Regarding slipping vs. hooking the ankle: first more power and better form, second more control. Which one's preferable depends on how well the drop and shift put the opponent off balance already. If you have a good tai sabaki and hip control, I prefer hooking (in fights).

    But that's just me.
    Well under the rulesets of BJJ & MMA, where there is no tangible pay-off (ippon), it's hard to justify passing up the control.
    Dum spiro, spero.
    Tada gan iarracht.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    77
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Suplex can be an option from there but you should always have more than one. Especially if they are bigger than you, you're tired or they are already dropping their weight low. A suplex would also not be allowed in no-gi BJJ (if they land on their head/shoulders).
    Fair enough. But still, the technique as shown could be altered to be either more powerful against stability and harder to counter, or with more control against regaining stability and harder to counter - without much of a payoff in respect to what is shown (see more below).

    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Again, this throw is also not going straight back but to the side, landing with uke on their side facing away from you.
    I think we are just talking about different things here: You are talking about ending position, I am talking about directions relative to the original facing direction of the opponent, i.e. throwing sidewards, not throwing the opponent on his side (backwards with 1/4 twist). This has the advantage of more and longer support of the supporting foot, making the whole move effectively harder to counter.

    Additionally, the relative finishing positions (on the side, uke facing away from you) would be very similar/the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Well under the rulesets of BJJ & MMA, where there is no tangible pay-off (ippon), it's hard to justify passing up the control.
    The point of Racey I referred to is that he slips (banana etc.) in order to generate more power for the throw (and prevent injuries). This (additional power) can be necessary in order not to hang there like an idiot with an opponent standing tall/retaining stability and significantly reduces this risk, so it is a quite huge pay-off in question, i.e. failing completely. When dropping and shifting already put the opponent off-balance, though, hooking (ankle, not whole leg/knee) reduces the risk of him stepping outside and regaining stability.

    As you said, there is a need to have options in order to adapt to whatever the opponent (or your body) is doing.

    However, in both cases the direction of the movement in general is a different one, and it is not simply twist vs. (possibile) counter-twist, which could make both landing position unfavourable and the intended transition into hold/choke impossible. He simply gives up his own stability (look at the line/plane foot, knee, hip of his supporting leg, esp. in the second execution!) way too early in the technique by this twisting movement. That's why both mentioned options are harder to counter.

    The hip-control you mention above does help, but not really prevent that against non-compliant partners imho, as if they are able to retain stability but some fractures of a second longer, they can turn both you and themselves. It is tori giving up any possibility of counter-measures too early rather than lack of "sticking-togetherness" that makes it lack control.
    Last edited by Falenay; 9/04/2017 5:42am at .

  6. #56
    cualltaigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cooltown, SEQ
    Posts
    1,783
    Style
    BJJ, MMA
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    Fair enough. But still, the technique as shown could be altered to be either more powerful against stability and harder to counter, or with more control against regaining stability and harder to counter - without much of a payoff in respect to what is shown (see more below).
    The strength of this variation is how much control you have. It doesn't need to be more powerful - in fact you'd be giving up control in order achieve more power, making it easier to counter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    I think we are just talking about different things here: You are talking about ending position, I am talking about directions relative to the original facing direction of the opponent, i.e. throwing sidewards, not throwing the opponent on his side (backwards with 1/4 twist). This has the advantage of more and longer support of the supporting foot, making the whole move effectively harder to counter.

    Additionally, the relative finishing positions (on the side, uke facing away from you) would be very similar/the same.
    For this I was referring to the movement of tori, not uke - and not the ending position. For this particular variation, tori starts a lot further around the back than a more traditional version but still shifts his weight to uke's side before executing the takedown. He is not just twisting uke, uke twists naturally as a result of tori's shift out to the side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    The point of Racey I referred to is that he slips (banana etc.) in order to generate more power for the throw (and prevent injuries). This (additional power) can be necessary in order not to hang there like an idiot with an opponent standing tall/retaining stability and significantly reduces this risk, so it is a quite huge pay-off in question, i.e. failing completely. When dropping and shifting already put the opponent off-balance, though, hooking (ankle, not whole leg/knee) reduces the risk of him stepping outside and regaining stability.
    Because of the hip control standing tall is not an effective counter to this variation. I've taken down 136kg man-mountains with this in MMA sparring without issue. Short of leaning forward enough that your hands are the mat (or dropping to turtle) - in either case essentially giving up your back - you simply don't have the stability to resist on your feet.

    The real counter is if uke can step to the outside. There's a nice little inside heel hook you can switch to if this happens though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    As you said, there is a need to have options in order to adapt to whatever the opponent (or your body) is doing.
    Haha, well played.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    However, in both cases the direction of the movement in general is a different one, and it is not simply twist vs. (possibile) counter-twist, which could make both landing position unfavourable and the intended transition into hold/choke impossible.
    It doesn't really matter where we land, If I have your back with control of your hips you're going to have a really hard time stopping me from advancing to the choke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    He simply gives up his own stability (look at the line/plane foot, knee, hip of his supporting leg, esp. in the second execution!) way too early in the technique by this twisting movement. That's why both mentioned options are harder to counter.
    Well it is a sacrifice throw ;-). What he's not giving up is the control of uke's back and hips.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falenay View Post
    The hip-control you mention above does help, but not really prevent that against non-compliant partners imho, as if they are able to retain stability but some fractures of a second longer, they can turn both you and themselves. It is tori giving up any possibility of counter-measures too early rather than lack of "sticking-togetherness" that makes it lack control.
    Having pulled this off regularly against non-compliant partners I would have to disagree. If I'm on your back with control of your hips, you being able to last an extra few fractions of a second on your feet isn't going to be of any benefit to you.
    Dum spiro, spero.
    Tada gan iarracht.

Page 6 of 6 First ... 23456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in