Grappling & Kung-Fu--Myth & Reality

[Hubert]

If my body, breath and mind are all unified then Im doing taijiquan

Most fighters could then claim to do taijiquan. I believe that indeed naturally good fighters have achieved body, breath and mind unity. However surely there is more to Taijiquan than that.

But well, we're sidetracking.

How is that contradictory to any taiji principles? How is it "not kung fu"? What do you define as kung fu - it means "hard work applied consistently and correctly over time". Do you mean CMA? I can put you in touch with a variety of high level CMA guys who use the sprawl in their traditional system.

Ok, I have to be careful with what I say because I'm not familiar with sprawling. I can only comment on what I saw in those videos. What I saw was using a grappling technique against a grappling attack. Which is fine. As Ronan mentioned, we don't have to stick rigidly to Kung Fu.

However what I saw was not taijiquan nor shaolinquan. It was grappling! In most of the videos they end up rolling on the ground, or fighting randomly.

You say the sprawl makes the mistake of playing the opponents game

That's indeed what I'm saying, now based on the videos. Again, they all end up in a grappling contest (especially the Wing Chun one - where exactly is Wing Chun used in that video?)

As for the technique you find appropriate - it doesnt actually show anything relating to this discussion on shooting does it?

Well, it's a Shaolin counter against a shoot, which in a thread discussing grappling vs Kung Fu seems to qualify


To summarize, my point is that sprawling is falling in the trap of using the opponent's strong point. In this case, using a grappling technique against grappling. Generally we would do this if we find that no Kung Fu technique is appropriate. I believe it is not the case, and I believe it comes from a quite common misunderstanding of Kung Fu.

Now, I admit it is a bit blunt from me to say this, as you have 20 years of experience, and I have merely 2. I mean absolutely no disrespect, but I feel incline to express my french opinion

[Kaitain]

not a problem - we can only ever speak from the experience we have. Noone is ever so experience they cant be wrong, and noone is ever so inexperienced they cant be right.

Unified body, breath and mind is the core of taijiquan. Or rather, chin, chi and shen (as the internal energies/aspects of body, breath and mind). It is what makes it an internal art. The outer form is irrelevant by comparison. A good fighter might have unified body and breath and have a focussed intent, but that doesnt make it taijiquan. It doesnt make taijiquan better either - just different If the neija components are not present, then it isn't taijiquan. Leading with the mind is not something Im very good at yet - it comes and goes but it is the key. Bamboo_Leaf who has posted here a couple of times is the best person to talk to about it - he really knows his stuff. That's why I love the art - 7 years on and Im a complete novice to some of this. Im not even refining some concepts, Im learning them still. It's great

I can perform a sprawl and still be doing taijiquan. Hell, I can do a flying knee and still be doing taijiquan. The form is not a straight jacket. The classics say "the mind moves and the body follows".

Taiji is a grappling system - it trains at grappling range (push hands is grappling no?). As the student progresses he works beyond the pushing hands range into long (outside of push hands range - kicks, punches etc)and short range (throwing) fighting. So I dont see the issue with grappling a grappler. If my skills are right, it should not be a problem - I am at my best range when standing up and in contact with my opponent. If you consider taiji's physical aspect (and mental, but we'll leave that) to be predicated on Ting (listening), then contact is the best place to use that.

If I have to go to ground I am still using taiji principles - even if the submission techniques are mostly BJJ/sub-wrestling, all of my defensive work on the ground is taijquan. I know taijiquan guys with their own fast-wrestling set that is purely taiji based - one of them competed in a lot of MMA competition using it (and won a few - that wasnt his goal though).

Wing Chun is everywhere in that video - the flavour of his movement is obvious. He's just working in the grappling range against someone not doing WC, so it might be not be so clear as two guys doing chi sau.

The picture you showed is not a counter a shoot - it's a move applied to someone doing a bad shoot. In any case- without seeing the full sequence I am loathe to comment. My experience and training tell me that a shoot as shown in some of the videos I linked would not be stopped by that movement. If someone posts a video showing otherwise, I'll happily adjust my thinking.

I think you have a somewhat closed-view of what CMA is or should look like - an internal art has internal principles that must be adhered to. The outer appearance is unimportant if it adheres to the six harmonies. Application does not have to look like the form to be taijiquan. In my demo video I dont appear to be doing a particular posture in the form - yet Im doing taijiquan. Read the classics - on Peng: "the applications are infinite". What do you think that means?

Paul

[chris3212]

In my experience, and I realise it may well be alot more limited than everyone elses, proper stances for takedowns are very effective.

Takedowns of a "rugby style nature" (shoot I think?) are very effective but also risky. If you dont manage the takedown then your neck and head are awfully exposed. I have seen low "kung fu" stances used well in this situation.

Just my personal experiences.

Best wishes,

Chris

[yeniseri]

thanks for link

Kaitan,

The classic bow stance makes it easier to initiate a takedown so in agreement that even more stamina in the mode of physical conditioning is needed. Text book approaches will work for the not well conditioned and determination (motivation) is a major component of an outcome.

[Antonius]

Tiger Claw and Iron Palm

Dear Paul,

I watched your videos (thanks for those, although I've seen plenty before). Did you read the articles I posted?

I'd like to see video of anyone moving their body faster than a jab.

Maybe we're missing each other again. Maybe you're thinking of large body movements that involve moving the feet. I'm certainly not thinking of that. But I can certainly move my body faster a boxing jab. By "move my body", I mean remove the target (the head or the torso) from the punching range. The stances used in the videos your posted, including yours, do not allow for this kind of movement. Low stances do.

By the way, regarding the video of me sparring the Northern Shaolin guy, I agree that that was not a shoot. He is not a grappler. (Interestingly, he's a super-talented boxer.) The move he did was similar to a shoot, but not the same, obviously.

Nevertheless, my technique would work against a single-leg takedown, which I believe is the point. If you watch carefully, you'll see that I tame his hands (which are quite low) with my right hand while simultaneously retreating and striking. Not only will he not be able to apply the single-leg takedown, but my strike will land on his head.

Whether or not the strike will stop him is another discussion. For those who share my own view of internal force, I'm sure they can imagine what a single strike from someone with even a medium level Iron Palm would do.

Another thing I'd like to mention about the videos. In several of them, particularly the one of the Wing Chun guy (which I liked best), there were extended periods of time where the defender had his hands on the grappler's head and/or neck. Perhaps you have never felt a powerful Tiger Claw backed with internal force, but even these guys, who use completely external training, can crush bone with their grip. The IronMind #3 Gripper requires 280 pounds of pressure to close. Do you think your neck can withstand 280 pounds of pressure?

The pressure exerted at the tips of the fingers is much higher, just as a small-sized woman wearing high-heeled shoes can exert 500 pounds of pressure at the heel. For someone with a powerful Tiger Claw, if they can get a hand on your neck, then you're dead. Forget about pressure points and vulnerable spots, like the ears, which come off quite easily, or the eyes, which are easy to gouge once you have a head-hold. Just imagine one of those IronMind grippers getting a hold of your throat.

Or how about skin and muscle? Even if skin is not exposed, the Tiger Claw can do massive damage. Try grabbing a handful of skin and muscle through your shirt, and then imagine what someone with a powerful grip could do. It's true that a leather jacket might change things a bit, but heck, if we're going to start including armor, then I can counter all groundfighting with a sharp pencil.

Paul, I'm enjoying this discussion, and I hope you are too. It's good to compare, even if we don't agree.

[Kaitain]

Antonio - this conversation isnt really going anywhere is it? You are clearly of the opinion that you train a superior system to anyone else - an attitude which gets a bit wearing.

Jabs - I dont know where you get the idea that my stance is no good for evading a jab. With ten years of Muay Thai and competing I can safely say that it's pretty good for it. In my ongoing sparring and training I can safely say it works as well. What's your testing bed? You're response to a jab is no different to the one in the video - you're evading, not moving, which is what the shooter wants. Also, you might want to go tell your local boxing gym that there stance is no good against a jab. What a ridiculous thing to say! Have you not heard of duck and weave?

Aside from that, my point was that if you do not move your feet, then you will be taken down by a proper shoot. So if you evade the jab by shifting the body, then the leg will be taken or I will just continue my momentum forward (using footwork so Im still balanced) until I do get to you (let's not go down the "ah but then I....." path - this is hypothetical after all).

It's interesting that you know so much about my stance (that you dont train or spar in), yet I allow room for you to make statements about yours and frame my responses as questions. When I pointed out that in basic mechanical terms it is not possible to move as fast in a low stance as a high one, the subject then changed to evasion. I dont believe a low stance is as mobile or agile or evasive as a high one. You believe otherwise. I think it best to leave it there.

Your technique would not work against a single leg - you are not dealing with the hands, you have to deal with the forward momentum. If you do not move your front foot then you are leaving yourself open - you are relying on a strike to stop it. Not only does your strike have to land, it has to hit hard enough to stop them. It's convenient to say "Iron Palm"/Internal Force etc - I think it's a flawed position. What if you miss? You're not as deady as you think you are. You and chris seem to think that a shoot is an off-balance lunge that can easily be redirected - I'll say it again: Shoots require a setup. Like a jab - the evasion of the jab causes the energy to go high in the body, it is difficult to respond to the sudden change in height when the shoot comes in. This is basic CMA strategy - strike high, kick low. Kick low, strike high. Given that you are dealing with the possibility of more strikes coming high, when the opponent switches low you have very little time to react - the sprawl is proven as the best way to recover from this bad position. A shoot only comes in when you are at a disadvantage.

As for the tiger claw bit - that's predicated on getting to the position to apply it in the first place, which in _all_ cases was due to sprawling. Your method will not get you into the same position even if the tiger claw did what you believed. Basic physics ought to put some sort of idea in your mind that a woman's weight descending into the point of her heel is not the same as the muscles in the hand transferring their force through the fingertips - lever inefficiency etc. 280 pounds of pressure through the whole grip does not magically magnify itself because you're using the finger tips. A strong grip is important in CMA, but there is no magic technique that solves everything. Unless you have hands the size of hams, you're not going to get in a position on my neck to use any sort of crushing grip.

An alternate perspective - I train ripping and tearing in my art. If I was to do a takedown (not sure why I would but let's run with this) then I could conceivably rip a chunk out of my opponents inner thigh/calf/groin (a well known taiji master supposedly ended a fight this way 'back in the day') and that would be the end of it. So I have a bunch of skills that are not "ring safe", but I dont think of them as anything except techniques. Without the position and time to apply them, they are worthless.

The "Too Deadly" argument is an old and tired one - and seems to predicated on the other guy not doing the same. I saw a friend have his nose bitten in a fight once, my friend beat the shit out of the guy - it just enraged him. I have another friend who got hit in the head with a claw hammer, pulled it out of his head and battered the three guys that were attacking him (he runs a security company in London and is a bit mental). When survival is involved, the body can take a lot of pain and punishment. I had a finger ripped off and didnt notice until things had calmed down (I saw a flash of white and realised the skin and flesh was missing off my pinkie). What you think of as deadly, just plain isnt. Hit someone very hard in the throat - yes it is. Hit someone very hard in the head when they are on all fours - yes. Everything else - unlikely/difficult. Anyway - Im no virtual tough guy, I dont like fighting. Ive never seriously injured someone and have no intention of doing so. I just have some odd friends.

I think you'd be surprised how difficult you'd find it to make your sharp pencil stop me in a ground-fight. It's untested and unproven. Unless you have the basics of position and escape well-trained, you will not get the opportunity to use a weapon - you'll be mounted with your arms pinned under someones knees whilst they beat on your face.

**Most importantly - if you do not train to do the things you describe against the attacks described, it will not come out when it needs to.

Unless you're training against someone who can shoot properly, you're not in a position to state what will and won't work. Nothing that's been stated here suggests that you do, nothing on video suggests that you do.

Internal Force, Tiger Claw, Iron Palm, Sharp Pencil - even if you think of them as valid techniques/methods, they're not going to work without a structure to place them on. Go to a BJJ/MMA gym and say you want to work some takedown defence - at least see and feel for yourself what Im talking about. Obviously dont try and use these methods - just work the stuff from your stances and so forth. But you will come away knowing what you're dealing with - at the moment it's like training a technique against a single right hook that you know is coming and then thinking that you can take on a boxer.

Currently we're stuck in your theory versus my practice. "A guy who trains with us now used to be a good grappler" doesn't wash - how do you know what constitutes a good grappler?

Paul

[Tu Le]

Good grappler:

http://www.shaolin.org/discussion/bull-shit.html

Enough said.

[Kaitain]

based on what? He doesnt list any grappling styles in his post, he has nothing in the article laying claim to grappling. Golden bell and unbendable arm demonstrations are not in anyway related to grappling. Getting 5 people off of him when on the floor is not in any way related to grappling. Get 5 people to lock each of his limbs and choke him, and then he escapes - then I'll say it's related to grappling.

Im not sure what your point is...

Anyone in the UK is welcome to come to my club and train in a friendly manner so I can show these ideas Im talking about - I can get all my students to go home so that there's no spectators. We dont even have to spar - I can just show you. Im a friendly guy, I like training. It's not about ego - Im sure there are things that you can show me.

All Ive done is post personal experience - in response Ive been told that your stances are better than mine, my grappling defences are not taijiquan, my strikes may not have internal force and if they do I ought to train in your system so that I know how to deal with them. I've also been told that taijiquan in application must look like the form. In return Ive stated "try what Im showing you". Im then shown a video that is blatantly wrong in it's application of a shoot - I correct it. I post videos that show the correct the way to shoot and sprawl. Again I suggest you try it. Nope. Now it's the 'too deadly' comments that mean you dont need to know how to sprawl against a shoot because you'll kill them. Aside from the moral implication, I again state why that's not likely to succeed. I again suggest training with a good grappler that can shoot properly. Nope. Now one of the senior guys in the system is held up as a good grappler - yet the evidence from his own writing makes no such claims to be able to grapple.

I havent disrespected your art, I havent disrespected your students, I havent disrespected your training. I've just said that the shoot in the video is a bad one, and therefore the counters applied are not valid. I've said I dont go for Internal Force - I havent dismissed it, it's just not within my experience so I cant comment on it. I havent dismissed low stances, I've just said I prefer my way and that some of the arguments posted in favour of them are flawed.

Anyway - I think I've wasted enough time here. To those of you that treated me in kind - thanks for the chat. To those that think they've been polite, but are actually being passive aggressive, I suggest you think about the rules you're trying to live by and maybe try to be a bit more stringent in their application.

With respect,

Paul

[Ronan]

Hi paul,

I don't know why you keep suggesting that all our opinions are based on theory while all yours are based on practice. I trained jujitsu pretty seriously for four years and I still go when I have the time. You're not the only guy here who's had a good shoot done on him!

Again it comes down to what you find works for you the best. I find our style to be the most effective for me, but maybe it wouldn't be for you. I know that sprawling is effective, but If I can do a defence that gives me all the benefits of a sprawl (like moving my legs out of reach while pressing the opponent to the floor) without the disadvantages (like loosing my footing and essentially going to the floor) then I would prefer that. In our training we try to give ourselves as many advantages in combat as possible. If I had to sprawl then I would, but if I had the option of keeping my stance then I'd do that.

The bottom line is, a sprawl isn't the only way to defend a shoot, it's just the most widely used in MMA. Yet even in UFC and Pride you see some fighters simply stepping back out of a shoot. If you train to always sprawl as soon as someone goes for a shoot, even when it's not fully necessary, then you could miss an opportunity to get the upper hand. I've seen a guy feint a shoot (can't remember which organization it was in, Pride or UFC) and his opponent instantly sprawled but there was nothing to sprawl onto so he just fell flat on his face and got smothered with punches.

That happened because as soon as the guy looked like he was gonna shoot, the other guy launched straight into his defence which essentially threw away all his balance and footwork and left him face down on the floor. I'm not saying that happens all the time but it's a pretty bad thing to happen if you mess the technique up, so again it comes down to skill, the same as our defences. No technique is air tight, it just depends on the skill of the person applying it.

I agree with what you said, a shoot comes when you are at a disadvantage, but then we can argue that if the opponent set up the shoot wll enough then a sprawl wouldn't be effective either. It all comes down to semantics after that, which I'm not too fond of.

Again I'll say, my takedown defences (both sprawls and using Kungfu footwork) have worked for me against competant grapplers and they have also failed me at times. All I can hope to do is train more and get better. No technique is air tight, it's just what you find works best for you. I'm sure if Chuck Liddle said to someone before he entered UFC "if someone takes me down I'll just stand back up" the other person would've said "no you're crazy! you can't do that against a good grappler! They'd do this or they'd do that to you" But the fact is that Chuck has the skills to do just that, simply stand back up. Not an extravagant technique but it's remarkably effective and it works for him.

Best wishes

Ronan

[George]

based on what? He doesnt list any grappling styles in his post, he has nothing in the article laying claim to grappling.

I thought Jujitsu was a grappling art?

I havent disrespected your art, I havent disrespected your students, I havent disrespected your training.

Even if you hadn't before (which is debatable,) you have now.

I feel bad now for encouraging this thread to continue.

[Ronan]

Hey, I just saw your last post. Thanks for the invite, I'd love to meet up sometime and discuss training. You sound like a nice guy and I'm sure you won't have students hiding in the rafters!

And I'm also sure we could both learn from whatever the other is doing. I'll PM when I'm free and we'll see if we can arrange a weekend to meet up.

Best wishes

Ronan

[Kaitain]

Not sure where the disrespect is George, but there you go. It certainly wasn't intended. Someone posted Kai as an example of a good grappler, I merely stated that his article didnt mention grappling. Which it doesnt does it? (I may not be seeing something, but I've read it twice to check and I can't see anything).

Ronan - thanks for that post

Key points that make the difference and i agree with 100%:
1) "If I had to sprawl then I would, but if I had the option of keeping my stance then I'd do that. " - I certainly agree with that premise. I only sprawl when I have to get my legs and hips out of the way - my initial movement is just the step back (as per Chuck's video). A full sprawl is not something I want to be doing - I just didnt go into the differences here.
2) "If you train to always sprawl as soon as someone goes for a shoot, even when it's not fully necessary, then you could miss an opportunity to get the upper hand. I've seen a guy feint a shoot (can't remember which organization it was in, Pride or UFC) and his opponent instantly sprawled but there was nothing to sprawl onto so he just fell flat on his face and got smothered with punches." - I've seen that a few times.
3) everything you said about Chuck is on the money

That's all I was seeking - an acceptance that sometimes sprawling is necessary.

It'd be cool to meet up sometime - it doesnt sound like we need to discuss anything about grappling though

I did not mean to imply that none of you train properly against a shoot - just that the video linked to was not a good example of a shoot, and predicating techniques on that would be bad.

Good training

Paul

PS - I keep coming back because Im getting emailed whenever someone replies. I do have a job

[drunken boxer]

Training for failure

Paul (Sifu Paul?)
First of all I just want to say that I am really enjoying your contributions, and I have total respect for the things you say as it seems obvious they come from real experience of MMA.
I also think its brilliant that you can use taijiquan in this.
I certainly wouldn't want to have a fight with you!

I worked on some of the things being discussed here with my master (in hunyuan taijiquan) last night.
Now, I am a lightweight (10 stone) and I do not have experience of MMA or jujitsu or any other grappling.
I recognise that just because my master can apply a technique easily against me doesn't mean he could apply it against a UFC fighter!

However he also has other students including some who are 20 stone plus, a couple who have competed in sanshou and MMA, and numerous judo and jujitsu blackbelts of various ranks. But again, I’m not saying any of them can shoot like a UFC fighter.

To get to the techniques, when we tried single leg takedowns where we go in low and also using the shoulder to hit (which is something like a shoot right?), he had 3 responses.
The first one was a simple strike to the head on the way in.
If this strike was unsuccessful (hence I quoted "training for failure") his next move was a downward push/strike to the shoulder/back which redirected our force using our forward momentum and changing it to downward momentum - using our own force to slam us into the ground. The harder we went in the harder we hit the floor!
The third response (if the second was unsuccesful and the arms managed to grab the leg) is hard to describe but he twisted his legs again redirecting the force and locking the 'inside' arm between the two legs - which would result in using the persons own shooting force to break their arm.

[Kaitain]

That's cool - thanks for the post. I am by no means an MMA fighter - I just train with guys who do.

That stuff you were training sounds fine to me, although it sounds like the guys shooting are a little too bent forward (usually you cant push them down/forward without leading their energy first, in which case the front foot that they're shooting for ought to be cleared in order to get them to reach for something that isnt really there). Not sure on the last technique - I'd have to see it because i cant visualise how it would work as you describe. I would personally train the second techique you described with a retreat of the front leg - following the principle of deception in taijiquan by leading the opponent into emptiness. Sounds like a good session though

One of the downsides of training strikes against someone shooting in is it's difficult to train them 'live' - I like your sequence because it includes 'train for failure'.

Happy training

Paul

ps - I've just been out in the sun looking at all the girls so Im not in a grouchy mood anymore

[drunken boxer]

Yes, it was just a bit of fun when I asked him about 'shoots' – we don’t train them or use them so as for the 'shooter' being too crouched, I don't know because I admit I don't know how to do a shoot properly, but it seemed to me more like my master was pulling them into the more crouched position as part of the move.
But you may have a point.

Couple of other things I meant to say: I know what you are saying about setting up with a jab, but I now believe throwing a jab at a high level master is actually giving him an opportunity rather than creating one against him.
I hope I'm not sounding antagonistic or like a smart alec - I'm just giving my honest opinion based on what I've seen.

Also, regarding the Shaolin Wahnam videos, there have been times when I have watched a video and said for example "how could that work against a boxer?" but then I began training Wahnam Taijiquan and tried my boxing against it and very quickly realised "Ah thats how!" I’ve found that even some beginners in Wahnam have tremendous force, more than enough to stop a boxer (or at least this boxer) in his tracks. So this may also be the case with the shoot-type defences, though I haven’t tried these.

I hope you meet up with some of my Wahnam brothers, I think this would be very enjoyable and beneficial for both parties and I'd look forward to reading about it on the forum!

ps - I've just been out in the sun looking at all the girls so Im not in a grouchy mood anymore

Me too, wow!
Paul