I have always wanted to post this but never did until Legends takedown thread sparked the urge to do so.
From what I have read here this is my interpretation of a sprawl and correct me if I’m wrong:
>you sink your weight down in order to prevent being taken down or in Chinese terms uprooted<
I hear people say oh I don’t understand what stances are for, they’re impractical.
How in the world are stances any different!Am I the only one in here that has actually used horse stances successfully to maintain groud againts various larger opponents?What kind of kung fu practitioners are these?No offense to the person who said this but I remember some kung fu guy in here saying that he was learning how to sprawl since he didn’t understand the concept of stances.
Look I am not claiming to be a master or a good fighter however I am 5’5 124 lbs and I have held my own againts guys almost double my weight and much taller people.
I’m sorry to vent but I just can’t understand the mentality of some people these days.
I am speaking from experience.I’m not some guy who claims something without no proof like how many mma criticize some traditionalists.This is something that I have used and tested repeatedly not only in my style but againts others as well.
Hey Northern Mantis: You are not off the mark at all IMO. I do a southern style and I take the same position. Merry prankster’s posts are informative about how how different kinds of grapplers operate today. The problem is kung fu is hard work and most westerners dont like to do the required training and have quite weak stances in their kung fu. The sprawl is a good idea - if one doesnt know good kung fu. But if you develop good ma and ma bo and know the subtleties on how to use them many other options open up.
Of course I am not talking about show wushu but the real stuff.
Lots of folks on these chat lists have not done kung fu deeply enough.
Thanks for the respond guys.I wasn’t sure how the respones was going to be.I agree with yanfen,most guys want to be bruce lee in 3 easy steps.It’s not going to happen that way.Like in all things it takes hard work in time.
Actually a sprawl is when you kick both your legs back away from an opponent driving in for a single or a double leg takedown. As you kick your legs back, you drop your weight (from your hands and chest) upon your opponent to smother his/her forward momentum.
However, speaking from a traditional CMA standpoint, you can kick one leg back from a horse stance (so you end up in a forward arrow-stance) and turn your structure into an anchor to stuff your opponent’s forward drive by placing your forearm on his/her shoulder or by using a stiff arm (similar to the one used in American football to redirect a tackle).
But combat (to any degree of intensity) is dynamic, so the above is only an example and not a step-by-step guide to defending a takedown or a tackle.
No doubt that stancework can be effective, but remember to keep your options open. Don’t discount the sprawl. It’s my preference to be proficient with both.
You don’t ONLY sink your weight - you throw your legs back so the other guy can’t grab’em. Have you ever seen somebody sprawl? It doesn’t look like any chinese stance I’ve ever seen.
As for the sprawl only being for people that don’t know “good kung fu”, my sifu has been doing kung fu for forty plus years and he showed us a sprawl and told us that was how one defends a leg shoot. The sprawl is not a “shortcut”; in fact, it’s included in the “falling” training my sifu teaches, which is 100% chinese.
Again- nothing against the sprawl. But with sufficient and right CMA training you dont need it- but dynamically you never say never in a real situation . But CMA stance training needs to be well devloped. BTW Mr Nemo if your profile is right you havent been doing CMA very long and its a mix. One needs both stance and mobility CMA style.
A good “root,” is important, and I believe can only be developed by mat sense… repeated experience. The weight shifts are subtle sometimes. Sometimes not
The only problem I have with the concept of “sinking your root,” is that this idea works pretty well on a double leg, or if your opponent has overextended himself on a single.
If you do what straightblast5 suggests, you will have a REAL problem if a low sweep single (my fav) or ankle pick comes your way, or the corner is turned after you resist the double. Sinking into your stance to root yourself makes these three options a cakewalk.
This is why wrestlers prefer the sprawl. One basic defense to all leg attacks. Simple to learn, simple to drill, and the rest is drill drill drill to make the move instinctive and perfect. Many variations exist on the theme. Plus, popping back into what ever stance you choose after a good sprawl is simple as can be.
Yuan, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but I could say “with right and proper wrestling training, there is no need for kicking.”
Meryprankster:
I didnt say a thing about kicking. Most kickers dont know what they are doing. But again there too- never say never. Also, rooting
varies with structures.
I’m really having trouble picturing this defense, can you elaborate a little more on it. Is your legs in the Horse Stance staggered or parallel. How do you stop the shooters fwd momentum?
NafAnal
"Simple, step back into a bow stance and aim a viscious knee to his face.
Either that or a simple elbow to the head as he comes in, or a rear thrust punch cracking his skull."
Sorry Mr. Anal but no it isn’t that simple. To hit a good shooter the exact moment before he makes contact, in the exact spot to stop him is VERY unlikely. If he has already made contact and your on your way down, you no longer have a proper base to derive any sort of power to deliver your strikes.
If you think you can ‘root’ out a takedown attempt, with chinese stances or otherwise, you clearly haven’t had anyone even moderately competent trying to take you down.
I’m as big a proponent of the benefits of structure derived from chinese stance training as you’ll find - but it’s very clear to me that the purpose of this is NOT to counter via structure and weight sinking someone who has their arms around your lower body. It simply cannot be done - regardless of how developed your ‘kungfu’ is.
Striking someone shooting on you is great. But do you want to rely, in this circumstance or any other, on a technique that works great if everything goes perfect, but completely loses the battle for you if it fails? I certainly don’t. Couple that ‘striking’ with A) getting out of the way of the momentum and B) ‘bungling’ the other guy up with countergrappling. I’m no wrestler, but it seems to be that the sprawl is one good way of doing this. I don’t believe it is the only reliable way - however, this doesn’t change the basic principle that you need to have A & B in your strategy.
“If you do what straightblast5 suggests, you will have a REAL problem if a low sweep single (my fav) or ankle pick comes your way, or the corner is turned after you resist the double. Sinking into your stance to root yourself makes these three options a cakewalk.”
I think you have misinterpreted what I have written. In suggesting to kick back into an arrow stance (not a horse stance), I meant to do so before my opponent has a grasp of my leg(s). If your opponent has a hold on your leg(s), I doubt even a sprawl would be sufficient. What I suggested is not a static position, but like the sprawl, it is only a single motion within the sequence of a fight. Once you have stopped your opponent’s forward momentum (with either what I had suggested, or with a sprawl) one must continue to attack the opponent or move out of range. If I would merely maintain the position after the stop (albeit successful), I am sure a low sweep would be “cakewalk”, but like the sprawl, what I have suggested is not a static position but a juncture within a continuing sequence.
Perhaps I was not clear in my description, but what I had suggested in my previous post is a valid defense against a tackle, a single, or a double. It’s not only used in CMA, but within various schools of Jujitsu. But as with any defense, concept is more important than technique (the concept being to stop your opponent’s forward momentum long enough to continue into another action without being entangled in a takedown) and whatever technique you choose (be it a stop or a sprawl) should efficiently achieve the objective stated in the concept. And the defense I suggested, just as the sprawl, is valid for this objective. It is just one of several options.
Straightblast - I think MP’s main point was that there’s actually a wider variety of ‘mean things’ you can do to a ‘rooted’ leg than there is to an ‘empty’ leg. This is contrary to what seems to be popular opinion among people who don’t train takedowns, that ‘solidifying’ the targetted limb/base will counter the takedown attempt - which is worse than false.
“Straightblast - I think MP’s main point was that there’s actually a wider variety of ‘mean things’ you can do to a ‘rooted’ leg than there is to an ‘empty’ leg. This is contrary to what seems to be popular opinion among people who don’t train takedowns, that ‘solidifying’ the targetted limb/base will counter the takedown attempt - which is worse than false.”
I train takedowns and “solidifying” a limb (and leaving it static) for the taking was not what I meant either.
I am a little confused, if you throw only one leg back and your in bow stance the shooter will automatically attack the forward leg. If he has your leg, it’s not over yet; you can still get a wizzer or a crossface but you could be taken down an any time. i don’t see why this Bow stance would be advantageous to throwing both your legs back.
