What is the best way to counter the shoot?

[Tant01]

Good points. Someone might actually know what he's talking about!

Welcom to the forum Lei Kung!


Thanks for sharing your fine points of "shoot" defense.

I would have put in one word for the answer. SPRAWL Outside a dojo or gym that specializes in grappling it's the best response. IMHO.

[J-Luck]

Ah, I'm not sure what this is in response to. I'm guessing that you are taking the term non-grappler to mean doesn't know how to sprawl which I don't understand. Many strikers learn to sprawl just to avoid the shoot but they don't then learn to be grapplers. Ultimately, I just guessing at what this is in response to so maybe the clarification of non-grappler and sprawling is irrelevant but it was my best guess.



Lei Kung

You lack common sense... I see lol. You said it would be dangerous for someone to sprawl who doesn't know how to. And you felt that you needed to make that point. What I said was, if someone didn't know how to sprawl or didn't feel comfortable in their ability to, then why would they? It was implied that someone who didn't know how to sprawl wouldn't. Thanks for the sarcasm, but it didn't work .

[J-Luck]

Going to a standing (or kneeling) clinch is possible. Although, the person that sprawled can break free and stand up without clinching if they choose to, so long as they choose to before the shooter can grasp an under-hook. (I also find it interesting that only in response how dangerous it can be to use knees in a sprawl that you adjust to the clinch which wasn't mentioned before.)

By this statement of yours, I'm lead to believe that you are suggesting the sprawler then draw the shooter into a standing clinch. I think this is a horrible idea. If the sprawler isn't a grappler they should break free rather then enter a free standing clinch (the notable exception is the Mauy Thai clinch). The shooter, obviously a grappler, will want to work a clinch for a takedown. If the sprawler is a grappler, why would they give up the dominate position in a sprawl to move to a neutral one in a clinch? That just doesn't make sense.

Lei Kung

Again, playing dumb is bad lol. So stop. OBVIOUSLY we're assuming both people are well rounded. That would be the reasonable assupmtion. That being said, if you WANTED TO USE KNEES, (I also said you could go upper body of under over, or under under for the takedown ) you would definitly stand the person up, and NO of course it's not a bad idea... would you knee from a sprawling position? NO, and you agreed to that. I'm not talking a slow, telegraphed movement here, and especially when most people who are under a good spawl and can't take the single or double leg lock up both elbows and roll, or abandon the shot and go upperbody. I mean you could also go behind the person, but their not likely to give you that, you're much more likely to have to fight hard for those, as opposed to standing them up(which if their under a good sprawl they are likely to try).

[lei_kung]

You lack common sense... I see lol.

Not sure this is called for but I would suggest that you either get your facts straight or improve your reading comprehension before you start slinging insults.

You said it would be dangerous for someone to sprawl who doesn't know how to. And you felt that you needed to make that point.

Here is where reading comprehension would help. I hate to quote myself but since what I said is the issue I will.

One should also be careful of the advice to stay in a sprawl throwing knees. If we are talking about a non-grappler the idea of using knees in the sprawled position is horrible advice (and can be dangerous for the experienced grappler as well).

It is plainly obvious and the quote clearly shows that I'm talking about a non-grappler sprawling and not someone that doesn't know how to sprawl. In another post I point out many strikers learn to sprawl for shoot defense but are not grapplers. Just as knowing how to throw a jab doesn't make one a boxer, knowing how to sprawl doesn't make one a grappler. In fact I've never mentioned someone sprawling that doesn't know how to. Many find it helpful to read what they are responding to before they respond.

What I said was, if someone didn't know how to sprawl or didn't feel comfortable in their ability to, then why would they? It was implied that someone who didn't know how to sprawl wouldn't. Thanks for the sarcasm, but it didn't work .

I will agree that if someone doesn't know how to sprawl or feels uncomfortable doing so, they most likely would not do it (even though it is an easy technique to learn and use). But that has nothing to do with anything I said. If I'm talking about how throw a good jab, you can hardly rebut me by spouting off on the price of chocolate flavored laxatives. You are the only one that talked about someone not knowing how to sprawl trying to, so you have no point. Oh and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, as is now obvious I was right in that you read non-grappler to mean doesn't know how to sprawl. In a previous post, I clearly showed that to be wrong.

Lei Kung

[J-Luck]

Not sure this is called for but I would suggest that you either get your facts straight or improve your reading comprehension before you start slinging insults.



Here is where reading comprehension would help. I hate to quote myself but since what I said is the issue I will.

It is plainly obvious and the quote clearly shows that I'm talking about a non-grappler sprawling and not someone that doesn't know how to sprawl. In another post I point out many strikers learn to sprawl for shoot defense but are not grapplers. Just as knowing how to throw a jab doesn't make one a boxer, knowing how to sprawl doesn't make one a grappler. In fact I've never mentioned someone sprawling that doesn't know how to. Many find it helpful to read what they are responding to before they respond.



I will agree that if someone doesn't know how to sprawl or feels uncomfortable doing so, they most likely would not do it (even though it is an easy technique to learn and use). But that has nothing to do with anything I said. If I'm talking about how throw a good jab, you can hardly rebut me by spouting off on the price of chocolate flavored laxatives. You are the only one that talked about someone not knowing how to sprawl trying to, so you have no point. Oh and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, as is now obvious I was right in that you read non-grappler to mean doesn't know how to sprawl. In a previous post, I clearly showed that to be wrong.

Lei Kung

Reading comprehension is one of my strong points... maybe you should take your own advice. And I completely understood what was being said. Maybe you were confused on your own point? And you DEFINITLY did talk about someone who doesn't know how to sprawl sprawling, you said it would be dangerous. And you didn't show that to be wrong.... if someone is trained to sprawl, they would train in other aspects of grappling. For exaple, Chuck liddell is trained to defend the takedown(MMA example) he is a stand up guy. Most people would not consider him a grappler, though he was a division 1 college wrestler, and therefore intimately aquainted with grappling. He would not have learned just to sprawl. So a non-grappler sprawling makes no sense. At all. If you don't have a feel for grappling, you wouldn't sprawl. My point is, if you are a striker, you don't learn strictly to sprawn, and you would be familiar with other areas of grappling. I wasn't trying to insult you but I felt you were coming at me. I'm sorry if you were offended. I'd like to get back to the topic and not fling insults lol. *extends hand*

[lei_kung]

Again, playing dumb is bad lol. So stop.

You love to use personal attacks without any substance don't you. It might be wise to be sure you are right before you start attacking. You know the old saying "better to not speak and let everyone think you are a fool then to open your mouth and prove it to them".

OBVIOUSLY we're assuming both people are well rounded. That would be the reasonable assupmtion.

I have no idea where this assumption came from. If you've read my posts you know that I didn't make that assumption and in fact used terms such as "non-grappler". That blatantly shows that I made no such assumption. I also stated that I was responding to the original author of this thread in order to answer his questions. The original author has shown in this thread that he doesn't fully understand what a sprawl is (he even asked for video) which goes to show that assuming we are talking about well rounded combatants is a faulty assumption.

That being said, if you WANTED TO USE KNEES, (I also said you could go upper body of under over, or under under for the takedown ) you would definitly stand the person up, and NO of course it's not a bad idea... would you knee from a sprawling position? NO, and you agreed to that.

From the sprawled position I will agree that you could stand someone up to deliver knees and it would be better then trying to do so from the sprawled position (but that isn't the only way to move into a position to deliver knee strikes effectively and safely). Although, up until I called you out for suggesting using knee strikes from the sprawled position you never mentioned moving to a free standing clinch. So either you assumed everyone here knew that is what you meant, which would be the height of foolishness, or you added that when called out.

I'm not talking a slow, telegraphed movement here, and especially when most people who are under a good spawl and can't take the single or double leg lock up both elbows and roll, or abandon the shot and go upperbody.

I really wish you would take an English grammar class or at least proof read your posts. Because of the poor grammar I have no idea what is being said in this run on sentence.

I mean you could also go behind the person, but their not likely to give you that, you're much more likely to have to fight hard for those, as opposed to standing them up(which if their under a good sprawl they are likely to try).

Ok, I'll agree that when grappling, the opponent will not freely give you a superior position, that it totally irrelevant to the idea of moving to a stand up position. Fact of the matter is that the top position in a sprawl (the one the sprawl is in) is an advantageous position. From there you try to transition to a better position or a submission, that is the very foundation of grappling strategy. Why would a grappler give up an advantageous position to move into a neutral clinch, which is contrary to grappling strategy.

If the sprawler is not a grappler they would not want to be in a clinch where they are giving their opponent, who obviously is a grappler, control by being in the clinch (unless we are talking about the Muay Thai clinch). Again this is just a flat out bad idea. I must believe that you got called out and came up with the clinch comment to save face. Too bad you didn't think about it and now find yourself getting called out again.

Lei Kung

[J-Luck]

You love to use personal attacks without any substance don't you. It might be wise to be sure you are right before you start attacking. You know the old saying "better to not speak and let everyone think you are a fool then to open your mouth and prove it to them".



I have no idea where this assumption came from. If you've read my posts you know that I didn't make that assumption and in fact used terms such as "non-grappler". That blatantly shows that I made no such assumption. I also stated that I was responding to the original author of this thread in order to answer his questions. The original author has shown in this thread that he doesn't fully understand what a sprawl is (he even asked for video) which goes to show that assuming we are talking about well rounded combatants is a faulty assumption.



From the sprawled position I will agree that you could stand someone up to deliver knees and it would be better then trying to do so from the sprawled position (but that isn't the only way to move into a position to deliver knee strikes effectively and safely). Although, up until I called you out for suggesting using knee strikes from the sprawled position you never mentioned moving to a free standing clinch. So either you assumed everyone here knew that is what you meant, which would be the height of foolishness, or you added that when called out.



I really wish you would take an English grammar class or at least proof read your posts. Because of the poor grammar I have no idea what is being said in this run on sentence.



Ok, I'll agree that when grappling, the opponent will not freely give you a superior position, that it totally irrelevant to the idea of moving to a stand up position. Fact of the matter is that the top position in a sprawl (the one the sprawl is in) is an advantageous position. From there you try to transition to a better position or a submission, that is the very foundation of grappling strategy. Why would a grappler give up an advantageous position to move into a neutral clinch, which is contrary to grappling strategy.

If the sprawler is not a grappler they would not want to be in a clinch where they are giving their opponent, who obviously is a grappler, control by being in the clinch (unless we are talking about the Muay Thai clinch). Again this is just a flat out bad idea. I must believe that you got called out and came up with the clinch comment to save face. Too bad you didn't think about it and now find yourself getting called out again.

Lei Kung

Look, honestly, I could refute everyone of your points. I choose not to. I said I'd like to get back to the topic and stop arguing. I feel that I am right and that you were being foolish, you feel the same you. I could refute you all day, and aparently you feel the same way. I also found plenty of gramma errors in your posts... and though it was a run on... come on... this is the internet, not a essay. And again, a non grappler would not sprawl... it simply makes no sense. Whatever though. I'm done arguing with you. I really am. I belive I am correct on all these points, and you disagree... I told you I FELT AS IF YOU ATTACKED ME FIRST, not the other way around... And I did appologise... so let's just leave it be.

[lei_kung]

Reading comprehension is one of my strong points... maybe you should take your own advice. And I completely understood what was being said. Maybe you were confused on your own point? And you DEFINITLY did talk about someone who doesn't know how to sprawl sprawling, you said it would be dangerous.

Lie. I never talked about someone attempting a sprawl without ever training it. Since you claim I did, point out where I said such a thing. You will not be able to because I didn’t.

And you didn't show that to be wrong.... if someone is trained to sprawl, they would train in other aspects of grappling.

This might be the dumbest thing I've heard you say yet. So if someone learns to throw a jab they then know how to box? Early in the UFC many strikers learned to sprawl without learning any other real grappling skills. In fact there have been many in the UFC that have a very basic understanding of grappling, little more then survival grappling (the sprawl by many is considered basic shoot defense) but doesn't make them a grappler. You aren't even using basic reasoning skills in your arguments any more.

For exaple, Chuck liddell is trained to defend the takedown(MMA example) he is a stand up guy. Most people would not consider him a grappler, though he was a division 1 college wrestler, and therefore intimately aquainted with grappling. He would not have learned just to sprawl. So a non-grappler sprawling makes no sense.

Wow, you've gone off the deep end. Not only have you picked a UFC champion that competed in division 1 wrestling to call a non-grappler, you assume that anything beyond the extreme of only knowing the sprawl then makes you a grappler or able to compete with one. A wrestler is a grappler by definition, one does not have to be a guard player to be a grappler (but I believe it helps). Seriously, you picked maybe the worst possible person for an example of a non-grappler. By the way, most champs in the UFC today will be well rounded, which again I was not addressing.

At all. If you don't have a feel for grappling, you wouldn't sprawl. My point is, if you are a striker, you don't learn strictly to sprawn, and you would be familiar with other areas of grappling. I wasn't trying to insult you but I felt you were coming at me. I'm sorry if you were offended. I'd like to get back to the topic and not fling insults lol. *extends hand*

Look, you have come after me and I responded. I will let this die, but I want you to point out where I said something about "someone who doesn't know how to sprawl, sprawling". I also would like you not to give dangerous advice that someone might take. By either pretending to know something or by explaining it in a way that is easily confused is irresponsible. Look, we are on a martial arts forum, people can come here and take something to heart. What you put out there could get someone hurt.

Lei Kung

[J-Luck]

Lie. I never talked about someone attempting a sprawl without ever training it. Since you claim I did, point out where I said such a thing. You will not be able to because I didn’t.



This might be the dumbest thing I've heard you say yet. So if someone learns to throw a jab they then know how to box? Early in the UFC many strikers learned to sprawl without learning any other real grappling skills. In fact to day there are many in the UFC that have a very basic understanding of grappling (more then just the sprawl mind you) but that little bit of survival grappling doesn't make them a grappler. You aren't even using basic reasoning skills in your arguments any more.



Wow, you've gone off the deep end. Not only have you picked a UFC champion that competed in division 1 wrestling to call a non-grappler, you assume that anything beyond the extreme of only knowing the sprawl then makes you a grappler or able to compete with one. A wrestler is a grappler by definition, one does not have to be a guard player to be a grappler (but I believe it helps). Seriously, you picked maybe the worst possible person for an example of a non-grappler. By the way, most champs in the UFC today will be well rounded, which again I was not addressing.



Look, you have come after me and I responded. I will let this die, but I want you to point out where I said something about "someone who doesn't know how to sprawl, sprawling". I also would like you not to give dangerous advice that someone might take. By either pretending to know something or by explaining it in a way that is easily confused is irresponsible. Look, we are on a martial arts forum, people can come here and take something to heart. What you put out there could get someone hurt.

Lei Kung

No, no it could not get anyone hurt... *sighs* We will put it out becuase It's a pointless argument. I have explained myself enough. I have reading great reading comprehension skills, I explained myself well enough, the Chuck Lidell comparison was about PERCEPTION... people think he is not a grappler becuase he doesn't grappler and only fights the takedown to keep it standing. I am not foolish, not one of my posts to you have been foolish. You've taken things I've said and grossly misinterpreted them. I'm not going to refute anything that you have said anymore in any detail, it is not a sign of weakness, it is merely to end this argument. Again, without any comebacks, lets end this.

[jubaji]

(even though it is an easy technique to learn and use).

Well, I reckon that depends on who you are attempting to sprawl on!

[osopardo]

just throwing this out for general discussion;

favorite counter to the sprawl?
with sprawler's arms hooking shooter's shoulders/upper arms?
with sprawler's arms around shooter's waist?


.

[Romeo]

Lei Kung is correct. Anybody who knows about grappling will see that he is talking sense and that J-Luck is just being moronic.

[Blue Wave Gym]

what about

just pulling guard on the way down or attempting
a super duper up kick

[Romeo]

Pulling guard and guillotine is the best method against some untrained tard who tries a double leg takedown or rugby tackle.

All this nonsense about knees and kicks is all bollocks lads. Pure fantasy stuff I'm afraid innit.

[GonzoStyles]

you smell, I mean sound just like nutter. TROLL! TROLL! sound the alarm! light the torches! would you care to explain to us your relation to nutter?
I know that England is a small country, did you cross bloodlines a little too close for genetic safety? that would explain alot! sorry about the bad teeth and all!