6 ms·

You can’t land a kick when someone has your foot. Gravity exists, you will immediately fall onto your butt as soon as you lift the other leg.

lazide 3y ago
On the ground is perfect for kicking them in the nuts, leg/torso strikes, sweeping their legs, or various control locks. It's a near ideal place to be to also get your opponent on the ground. You can also get a solid kick or sweep in, or throw them off balance on the way down too, if you're ready for it. You might find BJJ pretty interesting. [https://renzogracieacademy.com/about/what-is-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj/ https://renzogracieacademy.com/about/what-is-brazilian-jiu-j...], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0edxg2fFmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0edxg2fFmw] Judo teaches how to deal with it quite well too. The legs are the strongest part of a human, the arms don't compare at all. And fighting from the ground can be VERY effective if you know what you're doing. Or don't just curl up and wait to die. Ideally you'd be on your feet and able to move faster of course, and I wouldn't recommend against an opponent with a spear or other ranged weapon - but then they wouldn't be trying to grab my foot or leg anyway eh?
- LorenzoGood 3y ago
  Although when striking is involved, leg locks loose much of their effectiveness.
  - lazide 3y ago
    It's always a race to get the critical hit or lock in. But unless the 'grabee' doesn't do anything, someone grabbing one foot from someone is likely using both hands (and most of their upper body) to attempt to control it - and there is a second foot/leg out there free to cause a lot of damage if they're willing. It's not a 'one and done'/'game over' scenario by any stretch of the imagination if the party is even a little motivated. Though I suspect most folks in this thread have no exposure to an actual fight beyond watching a video somewhere, so....
    - LorenzoGood 3y ago
      For me the main example of leg locks failing in MMA is Ilia Toporia's knockout of Ryan Hall in the UFC. Also, many powerful leg locks entries fail to succeed in MMA, due to overcommitment of limbs.
      - lazide 3y ago
        There are also a large number of banned moves in MMA. Nothing is perfect. Grabbing someones foot/leg isn't a one and done deal, either way, because we do actually have two and they're pretty powerful.
    - datameta 3y ago
      Coming from a stand-up striking Muay Thai perspective the only low risk way to grab a leg is intercepting a kick. You are then out of range of their upper body attacks and have total leverage physically and tactically. At that point unless the fighter whose leg is grabbed is extremely experienced in keeping a one foot balance by avoiding sweeps (ignoring the fact that one can bring the fight to the ground in MMA or BJJ etc - which imo is not preferable in a street fight) they're in a supremely disadvantaged position and at the will of the grabber. In a tournament, though, these situations usually resolve very quickly one way way or the other.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        With your background. Can you extrapolate on how a tail would impact you? Would it be a big negative to have something that can be grabbed. Also. Chimps/Primates. Don't they fight more in packs. So if the competition was 5 on 1, would the tail become an even greater disadvantage. It would be even harder to maneuver or run, become someone could grab the tail.
        datameta 3y ago
        I have two separate thoughts on the matter. One is whether a tail would provide me with additional balance and/or striking power. Potentially as a counterweight during round housed kicks or spinning back kicks. The second is that a tail by itself would be an inferior weapon to punches, elbows, knees, and kicks due to its relative fragility and potentially high nerve density. So this leads to a utilitarian equation - is the additional counterbalance going to provide a sufficient edge to override the risk it adds of a relatively weak limb that can be grabbed?
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  Right, but if we're seriously talking about the liabilities that having a tail has in a fight, then presumably most of the scenarios would involve attacking from behind. Remember also that this would be mostly quadraped animals too. Legs would have been strong, but likely still arboreally adapted, so a relatively strong upper body as well. In such a scenario, you'd probably attack from behind from a bit of an angle to force strikes from the other leg to be severely cross body. My original point was not that attacking the leg was easy, my point is that a flexible tail doesn't give you much leverage and control and may not be as much of a liability as you think, since if you could access the tail anyways, you probably also had their back.

lazide 3y ago

On the ground is perfect for kicking them in the nuts, leg/torso strikes, sweeping their legs, or various control locks. It's a near ideal place to be to also get your opponent on the ground. You can also get a solid kick or sweep in, or throw them off balance on the way down too, if you're ready for it. You might find BJJ pretty interesting. [https://renzogracieacademy.com/about/what-is-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-bjj/ https://renzogracieacademy.com/about/what-is-brazilian-jiu-j...], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0edxg2fFmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0edxg2fFmw] Judo teaches how to deal with it quite well too. The legs are the strongest part of a human, the arms don't compare at all. And fighting from the ground can be VERY effective if you know what you're doing. Or don't just curl up and wait to die. Ideally you'd be on your feet and able to move faster of course, and I wouldn't recommend against an opponent with a spear or other ranged weapon - but then they wouldn't be trying to grab my foot or leg anyway eh?

LorenzoGood 3y ago
Although when striking is involved, leg locks loose much of their effectiveness.
- lazide 3y ago
  It's always a race to get the critical hit or lock in. But unless the 'grabee' doesn't do anything, someone grabbing one foot from someone is likely using both hands (and most of their upper body) to attempt to control it - and there is a second foot/leg out there free to cause a lot of damage if they're willing. It's not a 'one and done'/'game over' scenario by any stretch of the imagination if the party is even a little motivated. Though I suspect most folks in this thread have no exposure to an actual fight beyond watching a video somewhere, so....
  - LorenzoGood 3y ago
    For me the main example of leg locks failing in MMA is Ilia Toporia's knockout of Ryan Hall in the UFC. Also, many powerful leg locks entries fail to succeed in MMA, due to overcommitment of limbs.
    - lazide 3y ago
      There are also a large number of banned moves in MMA. Nothing is perfect. Grabbing someones foot/leg isn't a one and done deal, either way, because we do actually have two and they're pretty powerful.
  - datameta 3y ago
    Coming from a stand-up striking Muay Thai perspective the only low risk way to grab a leg is intercepting a kick. You are then out of range of their upper body attacks and have total leverage physically and tactically. At that point unless the fighter whose leg is grabbed is extremely experienced in keeping a one foot balance by avoiding sweeps (ignoring the fact that one can bring the fight to the ground in MMA or BJJ etc - which imo is not preferable in a street fight) they're in a supremely disadvantaged position and at the will of the grabber. In a tournament, though, these situations usually resolve very quickly one way way or the other.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      With your background. Can you extrapolate on how a tail would impact you? Would it be a big negative to have something that can be grabbed. Also. Chimps/Primates. Don't they fight more in packs. So if the competition was 5 on 1, would the tail become an even greater disadvantage. It would be even harder to maneuver or run, become someone could grab the tail.
      - datameta 3y ago
        I have two separate thoughts on the matter. One is whether a tail would provide me with additional balance and/or striking power. Potentially as a counterweight during round housed kicks or spinning back kicks. The second is that a tail by itself would be an inferior weapon to punches, elbows, knees, and kicks due to its relative fragility and potentially high nerve density. So this leads to a utilitarian equation - is the additional counterbalance going to provide a sufficient edge to override the risk it adds of a relatively weak limb that can be grabbed?
icegreentea2 3y ago
Right, but if we're seriously talking about the liabilities that having a tail has in a fight, then presumably most of the scenarios would involve attacking from behind. Remember also that this would be mostly quadraped animals too. Legs would have been strong, but likely still arboreally adapted, so a relatively strong upper body as well. In such a scenario, you'd probably attack from behind from a bit of an angle to force strikes from the other leg to be severely cross body. My original point was not that attacking the leg was easy, my point is that a flexible tail doesn't give you much leverage and control and may not be as much of a liability as you think, since if you could access the tail anyways, you probably also had their back.