Quesstion about Takedowns and Cardio

[BJ@LW&WW]

My takedown work is extremely basic as our gym only trains it on occasion. We do have a few judo bbs and some guys with wrestling credentials though so fighting with them in particular is really tough when we do work takedowns.

When I'm in any type of clinch position, i feel like im constantly flexing and expending tons of energy and I gas out rather quick. I also felt this way when i first started bjj but of course that went away with some experience and understanding of techniques.

Is working from the clinch the same way in that regard? Will I eventually stop having that constant tension in my muscles when I understand the takedown game better or is the takedown game different and it is necessary to constantly be expending so much energy to either stop take downs or to get them? Or maybe a combination of the two?

 

[Bubble Bath]

Depends on who you're facing. But yes, as you get better and practice more you'll have knowledge of when to use your energy more efficiently defensively and offensively. Not only that but your body will grow from the conditioning. Just remember to breathe.

 

[BJJArsenal]

The takedown game is more explosive and more tiring than ground work. But you shouldn't be constantly tensing up at all times.

 

[Bret Griffin]

Try counter wreslting a bit (sprawl and whatnot) but don't think of the takedown game as shoot,sprawl,shoot,sprawl rinse repeat until gassed like in bjj you have to set things up.

 

[bigkick]

I would love advice on this too. The days we work takedowns, and in particular the days we start sparring from standing, are terrifying to me. More than anything I think I just don't want to get hurt. I have worked on a single and a double and a couple judo trips and throws, but...well, I just need to work on them more.

 

[RJ Green]

playing the takedown game/clinching is a lot like punching.

a lot of dudes try to muscle it. they get really tense, try to 'oomph' it too much.

it's all about staying relaxed, using technique, and then applying speed.

that's why you see a lot of these big muscled guys gassing so badly in MMA. having big, bulky muscles is good for lifting heavy things, but they expend more energy. if you throw these really tense, crazy punches, or spend a lot of time muscling in the clinch, you're gonna gas really quickly.

contrast that with someone like anderson silva or jon jones. dudes are ripped, sure, but they're not like paul harris or houston alexander. they stay loose, they stay calm, and (especially Anderson) can knock you right the fuck out.

F = MA right? so if the mass is relatively constant, the acceleration is what matters, yeah? that's why the best judo looks effortless - it is. they time it just right, hit the move just so, but do it quickly and with great effect. same with Anderson's punches. dude is absolutely lightning, and deadly accurate. he hits people HARD because he hits them FAST.

you can have big muscles, you can run marathons, but none of that is going to do you any good if you're constantly straining you're gonna gas out.

you guys should first learn some breakfalls if you're gonna start from standing, because if you tighten up when you fall, you're gonna get hurt. when you get acclimated to being thrown, you also get an appreciation for the way a throw works, and stop straining against it.

 

[PointyShinyBurn]

You'll learn to be more efficient with time, but it's always going to be more tiring than rolling. You need to be using your energy exploding into take-downs, though, not trying to squeeze people to death with a collar tie. Attach yourself to him with your arms then move yourself about, don't try and muscle him around at arms length.

I would love advice on this too. The days we work takedowns, and in particular the days we start sparring from standing, are terrifying to me. More than anything I think I just don't want to get hurt. I have worked on a single and a double and a couple judo trips and throws, but...well, I just need to work on them more.

Sounds like you really need to work on your break-falls. You'll never be able to open up on the feet if you're afraid of getting thrown.

 

[PointyShinyBurn]

F = MA right? so if the mass is relatively constant, the acceleration is what matters, yeah? that's why the best judo looks effortless - it is. they time it just right, hit the move just so, but do it quickly and with great effect. same with Anderson's punches. dude is absolutely lightning, and deadly accurate. he hits people HARD because he hits them FAST.

Generally good post, but please don't misuse physics like this. F=MA describes the resultant acceleration (A) from the application of a force (F) to a mass (M), it doesn't mean that you get more "force" out of an accelerating body. Momentum (mass * velocity) or kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity^2) are the concepts you're looking for, but their application to bio-mechanics is super complex.

 

[RJ Green]

Generally good post, but please don't misuse physics like this. F=MA describes the resultant acceleration (A) from the application of a force (F) to a mass (M), it doesn't mean that you get more "force" out of an accelerating body. Momentum (mass * velocity) or kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity^2) are the concepts you're looking for, but their application to bio-mechanics is super complex.

...

 

[The Apostle]

Takedowns are hard. The most grueling aspect of grappling, maybe even all the fighting. Probably why most schools don't train them extensively, they're too hard and not as fun usually.

 

[The Apostle]

Generally good post, but please don't misuse physics like this. F=MA describes the resultant acceleration (A) from the application of a force (F) to a mass (M), it doesn't mean that you get more "force" out of an accelerating body. Momentum (mass * velocity) or kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity^2) are the concepts you're looking for, but their application to bio-mechanics is super complex.

Sorry but please explain to me how the equation of F=MA describes the resultant acceleration and not the big F to the left of the equation?

In broad terms, it does mean you'll get more "force." If we use that equation 2x, with different values for acceleration like F=M(10) and F=M(100), with mass being constant, your force has increased by 100x. Of course this is not taking into account bio-mechanics and that. But don't shut a dude down on using science when he was more correct than not.

 

[TMMAray]

Generally good post, but please don't misuse physics like this. F=MA describes the resultant acceleration (A) from the application of a force (F) to a mass (M), it doesn't mean that you get more "force" out of an accelerating body. Momentum (mass * velocity) or kinetic energy (1/2 * mass * velocity^2) are the concepts you're looking for, but their application to bio-mechanics is super complex.

It makes me crazy seeing people constantly misuse that equation.

"Yeah, speed = punching power because F=MA!"

or any of the other thousand retarded ways that people invoke it. When you try to explain that it's about momentum, kinetic energy, pressure, impulse, etc. they just give you a blank stare and say "so yeah...basically what I said, right?"

 

[TMMAray]

Sorry but please explain to me how the equation of F=MA describes the resultant acceleration and not the big F to the left of the equation?

In broad terms, it does mean you'll get more "force." If we use that equation 2x, with different values for acceleration like F=M(10) and F=M(100), with mass being constant, your force has increased by 100x. Of course this is not taking into account bio-mechanics and that. But don't shut a dude down on using science when he was more correct than not.

The point is that the amount of force you apply to a given mass determines its acceleration.

You can't just arbitrarily apply acceleration, resulting in force.

Just because the F is on the left side of the equals sign doesn't mean the equation is "how to make force." It can just as accurately be stated as F/M=A or F/A=M.

Point being that you generate force, which acts on a mass, resulting in acceleration. You don't just accelerate faster out of nowhere, it always comes from greater force having been generated (or equal force being applied to a smaller mass).

 

[The Apostle]

The point is that the amount of force you apply to a given mass determines its acceleration.

You can't just arbitrarily apply acceleration, resulting in force.

Just because the F is on the left side of the equals sign doesn't mean the equation is "how to make force." It can just as accurately be stated as F/M=A or F/A=M.

Point being that you generate force, which acts on a mass, resulting in acceleration. You don't just accelerate faster out of nowhere, it always comes from greater force having been generated (or equal force being applied to a smaller mass).

Hmmm. I have read and re-read your last paragraph trying to find a way that it's wrong. I cannot, nor can I think of any counter-examples. Dammit. I even thought I had found something about inertia.

Unfortunately for me I had never tied the two together between what you wrote about an object not accelerating out of nowhere and Newton's 2nd law or whatever. I bow down good sir.

And yes, I know you can re-arrange equations, and that just because F was on one side... but in his example, or this example, of takedowns. If we use Lesnar's or Sonnen's blast double leg, where they are driving through their opponent, for the most part doesn't the equation of f=ma apply?

 

[PointyShinyBurn]

If we use Lesnar's or Sonnen's blast double leg, where they are driving through their opponent, for the most part doesn't the equation of f=ma apply?

If we (over)simplify the situation to imagine they're pool balls just running into their opponents to try and knock them backwards, then its their momentum (mass * velocity) at the moment of impact that matters, not the force it took to get them up to that velocity.

Think of it this way, if you're going to sprint into someone with the aim of doing them harm, would it be better to hit them straight off the line, when your acceleration is at maximum, or once you've got up to full speed?

If acceleration decided how much things hurt when they smacked into you, being hit by a car doing a steady 90mph would be harmless.

 

[The Apostle]

If we (over)simplify the situation to imagine they're pool balls just running into their opponents to try and knock them backwards, then its their momentum (mass * velocity) at the moment of impact that matters, not the force it took to get them up to that velocity.

Think of it this way, if you're going to sprint into someone with the aim of doing them harm, would it be better to hit them straight off the line, when your acceleration is at maximum, or once you've got up to full speed?

If acceleration decided how much things hurt when they smacked into you, being hit by a car doing a steady 90mph would be harmless.

Isn't that what I was saying though? I said it was force, the big f to the left. I wrote the example of different values of acceleration, 10 and 100 I believe. Same car at 10 and the same car at 100. Which one would hurt worse? This is what I was saying earlier in response to you.

Oh and a car doing a steady 90 mph is no longer accelerating right? Which is what I think you were saying, holy shit.

 

[TMMAray]

As PointyShinyBurn said, it gets really complicated. Waaaaay more complicated that I am really even capable of fully grasping myself, let alone explaining it in a forum post.

In the simplest terms, it's more about their momentum and kinetic energy, as well as the change in those, and the amount of time in which that change occurs.

momentum is MV, so a body of a given mass moving at a given velocity will carry with it that much momentum.

Kinetic energy is .5*M*V^2 so a mass traveling at a given velocity will have kinetic energy equaling one half its mass times the square of its velocity.

As this relates to takedowns, basically an object with greater mass or greater velocity will have greater momentum and kinetic energy. The amount of change in that momentum or kinetic energy as well as the time interval over which it occurred determine the "power" (in the colloquial sense, not the physics term) of the impact.

So...to give a super-simplistic example, let's say I run into you going 10 m/s and we decelerate to 0 m/s. If that occurs over 10 seconds, that won't really be any sort of impact. If we do so in 1/100th of a second, it will be a tremendous impact.

...and this is where things start to get really complicated, because it's not a simple equation of two solid blocks in a perfectly symmetrical collision in a closed system. There are factors such as pressure (force over area, the reason a chest bump will do you no harm, but a punch carrying the same total mass and velocity will smash your face), human bodies being very complex objects, the complicated interplay between momentum, kinetic energy, work, power, impulse, and the zillion other things...yeah, this tangent has gone on far too long.

Ultimately, big muscly guys get tired because of 2 reasons:

1. They are prone to be more tense and use power over technique, which is tiring.
2. It takes more force to generate the same amount of acceleration on a larger mass. The greater the force generated, the more energy you must expend. The greater your rate of energy expenditure, the faster you tire.

I do appreciate you reading, thinking, and responding intelligently, by the way, rather than just digging your heels in and insisting that what you said was flawless.

edit: scientists, please excuse my using speed and velocity interchangeably. I have removed all references to "speed"

 

[PointyShinyBurn]

Isn't that what I was saying though? I said it was force, the big f to the left. I wrote the example of different values of acceleration, 10 and 100 I believe. Same car at 10 and the same car at 100. Which one would hurt worse? This is what I was saying earlier in response to you.

A car accelerating at 10 units could be going at 200 miles an hour, while the car accelerating at 100 units could be going 10 miles an hour. Which would you rather connect with? (Assuming they're not going to hit you more than once, which complicates it somewhat)

Oh and a car doing a steady 90 mph is no longer accelerating right?

Exactly, the acceleration is zero. So when it hits you, according to your interpretation of F=MA, it doesn't apply any "force" to you?

 

[The Apostle]

A car accelerating at 10 units could be going at 200 miles an hour, while the car accelerating at 100 units could be going 10 miles an hour. Which would you rather connect with? (Assuming they're not going to hit you more than once, which complicates it somewhat)
Exactly, the acceleration is zero. So when it hits you, according to your interpretation of F=MA, it doesn't apply any "force" to you?

No, I believe that is where we are disconnected. Sorry. I am comparing two different values of acceleration, two equations. One going 10, and one going 100, that the force would be different. The force of my blast double would be different. You are going the defining the single equation to the law route. I think we are on the same side but arguing different things. Productive. Forums.

 

[TMMAray]

Is working from the clinch the same way in that regard? Will I eventually stop having that constant tension in my muscles when I understand the takedown game better or is the takedown game different and it is necessary to constantly be expending so much energy to either stop take downs or to get them? Or maybe a combination of the two?

Since I've been party to the derailment of the thread, I feel it's only fair to answer the TS as well.

The short answer is: it will get better with time, but it's basically universally agreed upon that attempting/defending takedowns is the most tiring thing to do in MMA. Obviously we're talking about actively working, not a half-resting fence clinch or that sort of thing.

but yeah...you'll find it gets easier, but it never gets easy.