|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:19 am Post subject: Combinations when grappling |
 |
|
Called renraku waza in Japanese, these are fakes and setups that are used to create and ultimately exploit an opening in your opponents balance.
Now, one question I have, for those of you who practice BJJ, how do you incorporate combining takedowns with your position/submission game to ensure a smooth transition from standing grappling to dominant groundwork?
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TJ-Jitsu
Blue Belt
Joined: 30 Sep 2014
Posts: 316
Location: PA
Styles: Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Meh, I don't think it's very practical to think that far ahead. Any takedown should have a full commitment which means you don't have anything "extra" to plan something else. You have to deal with whatever position you end up in. The position you end up in usually depends on how your opponent defends. Sometimes you end up in full guard and sometimes you get cross side.
To have a set of criteria for the results of a takedown (i.e. I have to land in cross side) is asking too much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TJ-Jitsu wrote: |
Meh, I don't think it's very practical to think that far ahead. Any takedown should have a full commitment which means you don't have anything "extra" to plan something else. You have to deal with whatever position you end up in. The position you end up in usually depends on how your opponent defends. Sometimes you end up in full guard and sometimes you get cross side.
To have a set of criteria for the results of a takedown (i.e. I have to land in cross side) is asking too much |
This begs the question then, have you ever trained in Judo or Greco Roman wrestling?
Because in those systems, controlling how and where your opponent lands is paramount to what you do, and I wonder whether or not it would be valuable to many practitioners of BJJ to incorporate a strong takedown game so that they don't have to fight as hard for a dominant position.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tallgeese
Black Belt
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 6879
Location: McHenry County, IL
Styles: Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Bujin Bugei Jutsu, Gokei Ryu Kempo Jutsu, MMA, Shootfighting, boxing, kickboxing, JKD, Pekiti Tersia Kali
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:51 am Post subject: Re: Combinations when grappling |
|
|
| Tempest wrote: |
Called renraku waza in Japanese, these are fakes and setups that are used to create and ultimately exploit an opening in your opponents balance.
Now, one question I have, for those of you who practice BJJ, how do you incorporate combining takedowns with your position/submission game to ensure a smooth transition from standing grappling to dominant groundwork? |
I think the big factor is proper angles for force applications. There are better and worse angles to setup ones takedowns for follow up control. I'll agree and disagree with TJ on a couple of points.
I agree takedowns need to be a fully committed action. Strongly agree. That said, I think failing to take into account potential for follow up control is a mistake in execution.
Take the double leg for instance. If I shoot straight in and drive straight forward I can effect the takedown, and then fight a guard attempt. However, if I execute at an angle of drive that is at an angle after the shot then I can more reliably land cross side. It's that simple. It's never a guarantee, but it's such an easy manipulation for such a huge payoff you can't simply discount it.
Single legs are no different. Depending on how I control the leg and manipulate base can mean the difference between fighting a guard vs. landing in the pass. I think it's largely about proper body position and angle management. As is the case with a huge portion of jiu jitsu.
_________________
http://alphajiujitsu.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJhRVuwbm__LwXPvFMReMww |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJ-Jitsu
Blue Belt
Joined: 30 Sep 2014
Posts: 316
Location: PA
Styles: Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tempest wrote: |
| TJ-Jitsu wrote: |
Meh, I don't think it's very practical to think that far ahead. Any takedown should have a full commitment which means you don't have anything "extra" to plan something else. You have to deal with whatever position you end up in. The position you end up in usually depends on how your opponent defends. Sometimes you end up in full guard and sometimes you get cross side.
To have a set of criteria for the results of a takedown (i.e. I have to land in cross side) is asking too much |
This begs the question then, have you ever trained in Judo or Greco Roman wrestling?
Because in those systems, controlling how and where your opponent lands is paramount to what you do, and I wonder whether or not it would be valuable to many practitioners of BJJ to incorporate a strong takedown game so that they don't have to fight as hard for a dominant position. |
Indeed I do train Judo and I'm quite successful with it- particularly (and ironically I suppose?) in no gi. The theory sounds good- the idea that you're going to control your opponent, but the reality is different. One must control their opponent virtually 100% to be able to completely dictate whether they end up in guard, half, or cross side. Many takedowns are accomplished with much less than 100% control- you just take whats given your way. This is even exhibited in Judo itself when you see judoka throw and land in a kesa gatami (headlock) position- one that's not particularly effective at finishing, but only at pinning. If one had a choice, landing with an underhook is much more desirable. You also take into account the concept of "overthrowing" your opponent as it happens in judo. Both of these things occur precisely because one doesn't have complete control of their opponent.
To draw an analogy, its like someone that wants to pass the guard straight to full mount. Can it be done? Sure. Is it practical? Well, lots have done it so sure. On the other hand, is it a good strategy? This is where is it not. There are plenty of other opportunities to pass to the cross side when a full mount is not possible. You allow yourself to be successful "more often" if that makes sense. One is asking for too much if you want to only pass to full mount, and one is asking for too much only asking to have absolute control when they throw.
In short, I just want the takedown period. I don't really care which position we end up in so long as I've landed a takedown. Whatever position you land in well, that's why we've got jiu jitsu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TJ-Jitsu wrote: |
| Tempest wrote: |
| TJ-Jitsu wrote: |
Meh, I don't think it's very practical to think that far ahead. Any takedown should have a full commitment which means you don't have anything "extra" to plan something else. You have to deal with whatever position you end up in. The position you end up in usually depends on how your opponent defends. Sometimes you end up in full guard and sometimes you get cross side.
To have a set of criteria for the results of a takedown (i.e. I have to land in cross side) is asking too much |
This begs the question then, have you ever trained in Judo or Greco Roman wrestling?
Because in those systems, controlling how and where your opponent lands is paramount to what you do, and I wonder whether or not it would be valuable to many practitioners of BJJ to incorporate a strong takedown game so that they don't have to fight as hard for a dominant position. |
Indeed I do train Judo and I'm quite successful with it- particularly (and ironically I suppose?) in no gi. The theory sounds good- the idea that you're going to control your opponent, but the reality is different. One must control their opponent virtually 100% to be able to completely dictate whether they end up in guard, half, or cross side. Many takedowns are accomplished with much less than 100% control- you just take whats given your way. This is even exhibited in Judo itself when you see judoka throw and land in a kesa gatami (headlock) position- one that's not particularly effective at finishing, but only at pinning. If one had a choice, landing with an underhook is much more desirable. You also take into account the concept of "overthrowing" your opponent as it happens in judo. Both of these things occur precisely because one doesn't have complete control of their opponent.
To draw an analogy, its like someone that wants to pass the guard straight to full mount. Can it be done? Sure. Is it practical? Well, lots have done it so sure. On the other hand, is it a good strategy? This is where is it not. There are plenty of other opportunities to pass to the cross side when a full mount is not possible. You allow yourself to be successful "more often" if that makes sense. One is asking for too much if you want to only pass to full mount, and one is asking for too much only asking to have absolute control when they throw.
In short, I just want the takedown period. I don't really care which position we end up in so long as I've landed a takedown. Whatever position you land in well, that's why we've got jiu jitsu. |
Fair enough, but at the club where I practiced for a long time there were a large number of skilled competitors and they seemed pretty universal about controlling Uke as he is falling, for 2 reasons.
1. It is in the spirit of Judo to have mutual benefit and welfare, so when you throw someone, you are somewhat responsible for how they land unless they slip your control and spin out of a throw.
2. Our head coach is well known as a referee, so he always stressed the parts of an Ippon.
Largely on the back, with force, speed, and CONTROL.
A loss of control can, not always does, but can result in a lower score for the throw and unneeded groundwork. Groundwork is fun, but if you have 6-8 matches that day, you do not want to gas out in the first one.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bushido_man96
KF Sensei
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 30188
Location: Hays, KS
Styles: Taekwondo, Combat Hapkido, Aikido, GRACIE, Police Krav Maga, SPEAR
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understand what TJ is getting at, but what Tempest and Alex are getting at are also reasonable. I think that if you don't train to get the result that you want, then you aren't training for the maximum benefit of the technique. I do understand that when you get another resisting human being involved in the equation, its going to be very tough to get them to do exactly what you want them to. But training to do so will yield better results, I believe.
_________________
www.haysgym.com
http://www.sunyis.com/
www.aikidoofnorthwestkansas.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJ-Jitsu
Blue Belt
Joined: 30 Sep 2014
Posts: 316
Location: PA
Styles: Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bushido_man96 wrote: |
| I understand what TJ is getting at, but what Tempest and Alex are getting at are also reasonable. I think that if you don't train to get the result that you want, then you aren't training for the maximum benefit of the technique. I do understand that when you get another resisting human being involved in the equation, its going to be very tough to get them to do exactly what you want them to. But training to do so will yield better results, I believe. |
Sure! I mean I think for the most part we're in agreement here, it just becomes a matter of degree. It's of no use to get a takedown if ignoring lands you in a guillotine for example. Likewise to only attempt a takedown when you're absolutely sure it lands in a great position greatly limits your options. Some of us are a little to the left and some of use are a little to the right |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tempest
Green Belt
Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Posts: 424
Location: Dallas
Styles: Judo, HEMA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TJ-Jitsu wrote: |
| bushido_man96 wrote: |
| I understand what TJ is getting at, but what Tempest and Alex are getting at are also reasonable. I think that if you don't train to get the result that you want, then you aren't training for the maximum benefit of the technique. I do understand that when you get another resisting human being involved in the equation, its going to be very tough to get them to do exactly what you want them to. But training to do so will yield better results, I believe. |
Sure! I mean I think for the most part we're in agreement here, it just becomes a matter of degree. It's of no use to get a takedown if ignoring lands you in a guillotine for example. Likewise to only attempt a takedown when you're absolutely sure it lands in a great position greatly limits your options. Some of us are a little to the left and some of use are a little to the right |
Certainly! I can agree with this. I will also add that if you are doing drills, drill both. Do some combinations and also do some reps of just your go to throw.
_________________
Think first, act second, and stop getting the two confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
el-peligroso
Yellow Belt
Joined: 16 Oct 2016
Posts: 34
Location: YYZ
Styles: Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Jujutsu, Kickboxing, Muay Thai
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It all depends on how your opponent lands.
_________________
If you make a mistake, learn to live with it - your parents did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
on the post.
