KUNG FU AND CHI NA ARE EFFECTIVE BOTH STANDUP AND GROUND

[sensei8]

While no mma fighter has agreed to fight me without rules, I have sparred against a few of them and like i said nobody has managed to take me down.

I agree wearing protective gear would probably give them the security and safety they would need to step up against me, but after everything thats been said by mma experts about traditional martial arts being inferior to them I have a bone to pick and maybe its wrong but i want to hurt some of their heroes.

Imho, that's not what the MA is all about!! Just ignore them.

[Archimoto]

I have very mixed feelings about this thread.

I agree that MMA meatheads are aggravating....but a no-holds-barred challenge along with a few comments in this thread makes one sound like a traditional martial arts meathead. I'm not saying that you are one - instead I respectfully suggest that on this issue you might consider simply chilling out. From what I'm reading it sounds like you have nothing to prove to yourself - that's a good thing. Who cares what MMA meatheads think?

[KALIPUTRA]

Definitely Patrick Im intrigued though about Ultimate Fighter and Brazil am definitely gna look into that. Im also in agreement that taking someone down is an overated concept that modern BJJ and MMA have clung to for dear life.

[bushido_man96]

It isn't just something brought about through modern MMA. I've done research on the evolution of MMA through the years, and a Wrestler's ability to take the fight to the ground has been a fact that has commanded respect for quite some time. It doesn't really matter how great a striker you are, if a Wrestler wants to take a fight to the ground, its most likely going there.

[guird]

Definitely Patrick Im intrigued though about Ultimate Fighter and Brazil am definitely gna look into that. Im also in agreement that taking someone down is an overated concept that modern BJJ and MMA have clung to for dear life.

If you're good at preventing takedowns then good for you, and good that you're teaching it. If you don't mind me asking, how do you usually respond to a takedown attemp? (a basic double leg? a takedown from the clinch). I'm really deficient in this particular range.

[KALIPUTRA]

I would generally drop my horse stance to create an extremely low centre of gravity while simultaneously hammering my elbows down into his elbow joints thereby not allowing him to grab my legs. after that his entire face and head region should be exposed then I would (because I don't subscribe to mma rules) probably break his jaw.

[tallgeese]

I would generally drop my horse stance to create an extremely low centre of gravity while simultaneously hammering my elbows down into his elbow joints thereby not allowing him to grab my legs. after that his entire face and head region should be exposed then I would (because I don't subscribe to mma rules) probably break his jaw.

This response brings up some interesting points. Have you used this against good takedown people? Typicalkly a horse stance kind if defense only provides base against one angle of pressure. How do you adjust for the movent from a single or double to a rear takedown or body lock?

Traditionally, takedown artists are very good and cutting angles on the shot, and controlling elevation. How does the horse stance account for the inevitable drop to the submarine if it's base does shut sown the hip level shot? How does the more difficult to move low horse stance intercept a combination of angular changes and level changes?

I notice you go immediately to strikes rather than work for under hooks. How does this defense manage to off set his base without the controlling option of the under hooks. For that matter, how do you pummel for distance without the positional dominance that the under hooks give you.

I'm not saying that what you're suggesting doesn't work. I'm just saying I've never seen this sort of defense be a effective as other methods open floor and I've never seen it shut down the quality of people that you're talking about.

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, just saing that I haven't seen this tactic work before. If I'm not understanding, shoot some link to a video so I can get a better feel.

[sensei8]

I would generally drop my horse stance to create an extremely low centre of gravity while simultaneously hammering my elbows down into his elbow joints thereby not allowing him to grab my legs. after that his entire face and head region should be exposed then I would (because I don't subscribe to mma rules) probably break his jaw.

This response brings up some interesting points. Have you used this against good takedown people? Typicalkly a horse stance kind if defense only provides base against one angle of pressure. How do you adjust for the movent from a single or double to a rear takedown or body lock?

Traditionally, takedown artists are very good and cutting angles on the shot, and controlling elevation. How does the horse stance account for the inevitable drop to the submarine if it's base does shut sown the hip level shot? How does the more difficult to move low horse stance intercept a combination of angular changes and level changes?

I notice you go immediately to strikes rather than work for under hooks. How does this defense manage to off set his base without the controlling option of the under hooks. For that matter, how do you pummel for distance without the positional dominance that the under hooks give you.

I'm not saying that what you're suggesting doesn't work. I'm just saying I've never seen this sort of defense be a effective as other methods open floor and I've never seen it shut down the quality of people that you're talking about.

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, just saing that I haven't seen this tactic work before. If I'm not understanding, shoot some link to a video so I can get a better feel.

I wholeheartedly concur; solid post!!

Rarely, if at all, does dropping into a low horse stance work. When someone drops on me in the fashion that you're suggesting, I seek manageable angles left open through my transitions, and then I drive to and through my opponent with a spear. Either I'll drive my opponent to the ground to seek a dominate position, or, after I've driven my opponent to the ground, I'll return to my feet, and then go from there.

That low center of gravity works for somethings, but it doesn't work for everything. In that, staying low for too long can upset the apple cart for transitions in the future. Angled transitions can suffer if one stays way to long in any low center of gravity position.

I've been in that low center of gravity position before but I translate out of it asap, and in that, against someone driven to drive me to the ground, the sooner I'm more upright, the better I'll be.

If I were to choose between a low center of gravity defense or to sprawl; I'd choose the sprawl. If someone's not comforable on the ground, being on ones back isn't so fun, and in that, being on top might be more conducive for the next game plan...maybe...depends on ground experience.

Imho!!

[bushido_man96]

Someone really good at takedowns is probably going to bail on the shot if you drop to a horse stance, and instead just pick up one of the legs, switching to a single-leg takedown.

[KALIPUTRA]

I agree generally most takedown experts could take someone in an average horse stance down but if you look at traditional chinese methods of training the horse stance if done properly is supposed to be immovable.

But lets say for instance someone is able to take me down in horse stance im not an mma sportsman i dont intend giving him the chance to get a second shot at a different angle etc i intend breaking some bones while he is maneouvreing into a change of angle and probably leaving him with no arms to effect a takedown at the very least