If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to the Shaolin Wahnam Institute Virtual Kwoon and Discussion Forum.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
When considering joining our community, please read our Forum Rules and FAQ. Please also note that this forum, although open to the public, is actually a virtual extension of the Shaolin Wahnam Kwoon (Martial Arts School). Upon "entering" the school, we do expect our guests and members to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner at all times.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Please follow this link to find out what a Virtual Kwoon is.
DArryl - thanks for the heads up, but Im already training with two masters so I dont think I have the time to take on training with another one I have a lifetime of material to work with already, Im already training 2-3 hours a day plus teaching. I dont think my girlfriend would forgive me
sorry George but I don't see that as effective - in my experience it will not work. Striking someone as they shoot in is extremely high risk and you'll be lucky to hit hard enough and accurately enough to stop them, better to evade the danger and then strike. Sinking down into a shoot like the one in the video will work - against a proper shoot it'll fail miserably.
Some key points regarding shooting:
1) a shoot needs to be setup - hence the drill I posted previously about working from a jab and randomly shooting. http://users.pandora.be/wim.demeere/...ip/ring001.mpg is a good example of the drill and also shows that takedowns dont have to have you following the opponent to the deck. Note that he is throwing two jabs, the second is a feint to allow him to change height for the takedown - the partner reacts high to the perceived threat which gives room to get in and take him down.
2) a shoot comes from much closer - in the video, look at the distance at which he goes for the shoot, it is inside punching range
3) the back is straight - the shooter does not compromise his forward balance by reaching. He steps to the position - look at the front foot position in the above clip. The body is driven through the opponent as the arms rip the legs from under him.
I'm not suggesting that shooting in on someone is an invincible tachnique - far from it. In my experience it is better to:
1) not be setup - follow the principle of he moves, I arrive first so that the opportunity is not given. I think this holds good for most situations outside of competition. However, this is working from an "assumtion of success". Since I like to train for failure , I move to step two
2) be able to evade the shoot. I saw this clip of Antonio http://shaolin.org/video-clips-4/north-south02.html and it is not an effective evasion of a shoot (the fact that the technique coming in was even referred to as 'like a shoot' is a bit dodgy). By evade I mean, not be taken down by it. I dont think you can avoid contact completely, or should want to (in a self-defence context it is better to finish it as soon as you realise there is no other choice - consequently letting someone go having gained the advantage is just waiting for them to go again).
If you remove the term 'sprawl' and instead say "get the legs and hips out of the way of his hands whilst establishing contact/control of their head/upper body with your upper body", we can remove the 'wrestling technique' bit from this - Im going to refer to this technique as 'the sprawl'
http://www.grapplearts.com/Sprawl-VS...-Leg-Shoot.htm is a nice example of what Im talking about. It is predicated on the wrestler countering a cross, but the distance is still a bit long imho. It's good to remember that someone can go for a takedown as their own counter to your attacks. In taiji that's basically what I do - except Im hitting a lot on the way in prior to taking them down. note - I do not advocate shooting in in my training, my takedowns are as per my previous video - it happens as a blended sequence of striking and balance manipulation
From the sprawl a whole bunch of techniques are available - e.g. a front headlock, pushing them into the deck. My main goal if I've had to sprawl is to be in a position to strike - what some people term "coming up loaded". This is emphasised within taijiquan - the body must always be coiled/sprung/loaded/bow drawn/collected.
As has been stated, the likelihood of coming up against someone who can shoot properly is pretty small. I'm not great at it as it's not a technique I drill other than to teach people to defend against it - however, I do work the key points I listed above to make it as accurate as I can for my training partners. I get the benefit of training with good grapplers at my sub-wrestling/bjj class so I know what works for me.
So my recommendation would be to get the mats out and work the key points listed above with the drill I mentioned previously. Have a look at your counters and test them against a proper shoot that you arent sure is coming. (obviously drill it slowly against a pure shoot to start with, then work up in speed and randomness).
I'm not having a dig at your teacher - TCMA guys are generally the same. My teacher and his teacher are both of the opinion "if you're doing it right they won't take you down". I just went my own route to find out how I could achieve that goal, and then when I realised that I may well get taken down, I trained to make sure I could get up again.
then when I realised that I may well get taken down, I trained to make sure I could get up again.
Don't worry, we train this too. We're not so arrogant and stupid that we think no one can take us down. In my opinion, no matter how good your defense is there will always be someone who can get past it. Whether you ever meet them or not is another thing!
I think the main point of difference between our defence and the grappling defences mentioned above are found in the way we react initially to our oponent's movement. For instance, when a boxer moves in to feint with a jab or hook we don't just bring our guard up to our head and neglect our lower body position. We move our whole body, legs, hips and torso. This is better for us even if the shoot isn't coming but if it is then we are in a better position to execute the counter strike posted above. Moving our whole body gives us precious extra milliseconds to work with and much better mobility and balance. When a person simply leans their upper body back to avoid the feint attacks to the head it leaves them slightly off balance and makes the shoot much easier to execute. If someone is always rooted and balnced it makes the shoot very hard to pull off.
I'd like to point out that this isn't all just talk. Some people in our school were very talented fighters, grapplers, boxers etc. even before they started training here and can certainly deliver effective shoots. Maybe not to Randy Couture standard but they are effective enough to allow us to train realistically to defend against them and we make a point of never underestimating our opponent. So when you say this technique wouldn't work or that technique is ineffective, that's understandable because you havn't trained them consistenly. There are plenty of techniques in our style of Kungfu that on first impression I couldn't ever imagine someone pulling them off effectively. That was because I hadn't trained the skills necessary to execute them. Sure a beginner may not be able to do them very well but they need to train the skills, not just learn techniques.
We do our best to train realistically, working on efficient and effective techniques that give us the best range of advantages in combat. If a technique was useless against a hard and fast take down then we wouldn't use it, simple as that. We're not so naive as to use flowery patterns just because they look nice!
Best wishes
Ronan
"A single light can eliminate the darkness of millennia; a single piece of wisdom can dispel the ignorance of a million years. Do not worry about your past, always think of your future, and for your future always think good thoughts"
That technique will not work against a shoot like the one I linked to. It is predicated on stretching the opponent so that his back is bent forward and can therefore be pressured - a shoot never has the back bent like that, there is no opportunity to stretch them like that, therefore the technique will not work. A shoot goes through you, it doesnt stop when it reaches you. Watch the clip of the guy jabbing again and watch the foot work through the takedown - he keeps moving forward. A grapplers goal is to get hands on you, once you start retreating you have lost your main counter attack - striking. Well - striking as hard as you can when not moving backwards. (Step Back and Repulse Monkey trains the body to minimise the loss in power, but it's still a loss - similar to what your Sifu shows in the first part). If someone intends to keep coming at you until they grab you, then at some point you are going to have to engage on those terms unless you are lucky and land a hit good enough to stop them.
I'd like to see video of anyone moving their body faster than a jab. Aside from that, should someone retreat as I enter, then my next technique is obviously not going to be to shoot in - if I was simulating a grappler, I'd switch for a single leg maybe. Since the front leg is not weighted, it can be picked. Your strategy is based on being faster than your opponent, what do you do when someone is faster?
Regarding the jab - I would refer to my initial statement "he moves, I arrive first". I train so that I can enter and finish from his initial movement - ideally he never gets the chance to shoot in/grapple. However, should that go wrong, I have the sprawl and other response available.
Regarding "rooted and balanced" - that does not make a shoot hard to pull off - if you give someone your legs and hips, they have your balance and your root. Combined with forward momentum and 'Kuo' (barging) you are not going to stop it. I have 7 years of taiji training with one of the top guys in the UK - I have good rooting and balance. It doesnt help when two forces are being applied at once (lifting and pushing through). This is the basic principle of 'Ji' beating Peng.
Anyway - this is going nowhere now. I have my opinion, you have yours. Im testing mine against MMA competitors and instructors. Im happy. You're obviously content with what you're doing. I dont see any benefit in continuing from this point of the discussion.
So true. Grappling (holding, grabbing, etc) are central to the assaults common so anything that allows one to break that hold involves hand/foot coordination in throwing, kicking, and elbowing to stun and put down the assault. Many 'kungfu' patterns, for the most part are not up to the task.
Again, the few master like Sifu Wong are a rare breed so your own vision is in high regard regarding being prepared on all fronts for an unlikely encounter!
Better yet, your opponents will probably be armed and there will be two of them at least in this modern day scenario.
I think this video is an excellent example of why stances are useful. It is also an excellent example of why it is important to gave a good guard (by showing how not to do it.) Ironically, the video of Anthony that you criticise is an excellent example of employing such a guard.
I have to say I am not at all a fan of the counter you posted, although it may well be that the photo sequence does not do it justice. That said, it probably makes sense as part of the system that practitioner practices.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that by retreating we loose the ability to attack. It is merely a question of maintaining the same (or going to a different ) attack mode. If the attacker advances then I retreat to keep within the same attack mode, or I switch to a closer mode. I can still attack, just with a more appropriate set of techniques. This is a totally different subject though, easily large enough to require a new thread.
Originally posted by Kaitain
I dont see any benefit in continuing from this point of the discussion.
When confronted with repeated "in our system we do it right/better/faster", it does not really fall into discussion as much as rhetoric. However - I shall try again If you flick through the history of this topic, most of the time the responses have been "ah but in Wahnam we dont have to do that" or "my way is better", but there is nothing to back it up. I have not said "my way is better" with regard to things like stances and so on - I just do something different and say so. But.
When regarding countering something I train against, I know what works. I can also tell you that a lot of the responses people reference in the form for countering a shoot like "Snake Creeps Down", "Pick Up Needles" etc do not work - I've tried them. I've tried the methods on the video posted - they dont work (well - the striking does work, but you have to be lucky. If you miss or dont hit hard enough, you're stuffed. i prefer better odds). On a basic strategic level, a person shooting in is trying to get your legs and hips in order to throw you - the best and most reliable strategic response that has been proven by specialists (wrestlers, sub-grapplers, greco-roman etc) and by fighters (nhb/mma etc) _in a verifiable format_ is to get them out of reach. This is the sprawl.
The video that was held up as proving the efficacy of 'other' methods than the sprawl was showing a bad shoot - too far away, wrong body position, no continued forward momentum. It was also defended by someone who was expecting it and it came in at a quarter speed with someone who was deferring to the teacher's example. I showed a clip of someone training a takedown on a compliant partner in order to show what a proper shoot should be like. I could easily link to a bunch of UFC clips to show takedowns and sprawls in a non-compliant situation. You're responses are "well we can deal with it", but you have nothing to support it. I walked into a BJJ school and asked to train with them so I could see what to do against a proper takedown. Someone here says "we have people that used to do x" - it isnt the same thing. Unless you have video of someone doing a proper takedown attempt and the counter shown working against it, I don't buy it.
It isn't ironic that you think Anthony's showing good guard, versus the clip I talked about - if I was discussing guard then it might be valid. I was discussing takedowns and their defence, and a drill that trains people to deal with a takedown off of an attack. Instead of confronting that, you've moved to a different topic. The secondary point was that a shoot will launch from inside striking range - therefore train at that distance. My criticism of the clip of Anthony is that it was held up as a defence to a shoot, when a) there was no shoot present, and b) that defence would not work if it was.
You may not be a fan of the counter - it is an example of a sprawl defence, nothing more. It shows control of the upper body, clearing of the lower body, and striking once advantageous position has been gained. I don't see why it wouldnt make sense - can you explain why? Here's another example http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...69876&q=sprawl
Regarding retreat - if a body is moving backwards and throws a strike forward, it is not going to have the same power as from stationary is it? (basic mechanics right?) Aside from that - once you start retreating, the grappler will keep on coming. Train for failure - what if you're in a bar and there's no room to retreat? How do you deal with it then? As a side note - I can hit pretty hard whilst retreating, but I wouldnt want to bet my house on being able to land a hit on someone trying to take me down. However, I would bet my house on sprawling giving me a chance to nail him.
That's an interesting discussion. Thanks for contributing.
To come back to the actual point of this thread (using Kung Fu - taiji or shaolin - against grappling), would you say then that there is no appropriate technique in Taijiquan to counter a shoot?
The sprawling technique as shown on those videos, while indeed effective, is certainly not Kung Fu. It is making the mistake of playing the opponent's game.
Incidently, here is an example of a Kung Fu technique we find appropriate (it magically appeared today on Sifu's website )
Imagine Sifu Wong's back leg being straight, and you have a bow arrow stance (our poise pattern in that situation, just before the shoot). As you can see, you don't necessarily have to sprawl. You can just lower your body and strike - using Kung Fu techniques (with all their advantages).
I just wrote a reasonably big response but while I was looking at the clips you posted I accidently closed the window and lost my post which was great fun! So this one is gonna be a bit shorter.
Thanks for the clips you posted. They were very interesting, although I don't think the clip of Fedor Emelianenko is absolute proof that rooting is no good if they have your hips. The other guy didn't look very rooted to me and Fedor is a beast! I'm not saying that just being rooted would stop a good grappler from taking me down once they're at my hips, but being rooted is certainly not useless and could buy you an extra second or two.
should someone retreat as I enter, then my next technique is obviously not going to be to shoot in
That'd be great. I'm not a grappler so if I could prevent someone from even attempting a take down I would prefer to do that.
I'm definately not saying that the sprawl is ineffective. It's been proven to be very effective against some of the best competition fighters in the world. One main reason why I would prefer a different defence to a take down is that as soon as you go down with your opponent you loose many advantages and are left very exposed especially if there was more than one attacker. This being said, we're not restricted in Kungfu, so if I was in a position where for some reason my best option was to sprawl then I would sprawl my heart out!
Unless you have video of someone doing a proper takedown attempt and the counter shown working against it, I don't buy it.
I'm not too interested in making you buy it Like you said, you are happy doing what you do and so are we. This is just a dissucssion comparing different techniques and strategies, not a competition to see who's better, and in that respect I think it's going very well.
That being said, I'll try to take some short video clips this weekend if I can borrow my friend's camera. Not so that I can convince you that we're better, but just out of interest and to let you see what I'm talking about. Again, it's different strokes for different folks. I'm not telling you you should do it our way, I'm just explaining why we prefer to do it a different way.
I've stopped a shoot both ways and I know they both work. I've also been taken down while attempting to apply both defences. I just prefer one way better.
Best wishes
Ronan
"A single light can eliminate the darkness of millennia; a single piece of wisdom can dispel the ignorance of a million years. Do not worry about your past, always think of your future, and for your future always think good thoughts"
I think it comes down to how you perceive taijiquan. For me it is a principles based system. Whatever the outward appearance, it is the internal aspects that make it taijiquan. Consequently I have no issue using sprawling against a shoot - if my strikes, chin na, throws and grappling skills are all borne of taijiquan, then Im using taiji. If my body, breath and mind are all unified then Im doing taijiquan - according to my definition. I accept that there are many different approaches - this just happens to mine.
To put it in another light - I can take the upper body movement from Pick Up Needles and combine it with the footwork or Repulse Monkey and have a basic sprawl. I'm withdrawing my leading foot, im angling my body to receive, redirect and control an incoming force (the shoot). 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.
You say the sprawl makes the mistake of playing the opponents game - I would argue that if you don't sprawl you are far more likely to be playing his game by being taken to the ground.
As for the technique you find appropriate - it doesnt actually show anything relating to this discussion on shooting does it? If the shoot was anything like the one in the video that sparked this, then Im sure that's a valid technique. It would not work against a proper shoot, for the reasons stated previously.
Ronan - that's cool, thanks for the measured response. I'll be interested to see your clips, Im going to be filming some application stuff tomorrow night - I'll reference the clips here. Some of it is going to be related to principle based application vs form based (hopefully - last time I planned this I managed to get sidetracked onto another topic).
Regarding the being grabbed around the hips bit - yes being rooted is better than not being rooted, and if you sink your mind through the floor when grabbed like that you can make it harder still for them to lift you. My point is that it's not going to stop it - whereas not being in a position where they can grab you like that means that it's not a problem.
Glad you liked the clips - I just did a search and grabbed what looked interesting. The Chuck Lidell one is the best one when looking at sprawling, the Shamrock one is good for understanding the double-leg and the idea of impact 'through' the body.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
I have a lifetime of material to work with already, Im already training 2-3 hours a day plus teaching. I dont think my girlfriend would forgive me 
Comment