# BJJ vs striking arts  in self defence



## Zephyor

If you say self defence, you say 60% BJJ, it has a big reputation towards this direction.  But how good is it? o n1v1 situation you can end the fight with an armbar per-say or a throw but getting yourself o nthe groudn too is not a good idea if the bloke you're fighting has his mates with him. I liek the concept of BJJ but its hard sice i have to choose between 2 great arts and there's such little time


----------



## Leo89

You liek it? Never heard of anyone "lieking" anything. 

It's normal to like things though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

How good it is for self defense largely depends on how it is taught. Some BJJ academies spend 98% of their time working exclusively on ground fighting and in a sport context.* Others cover a more balanced curriculum which includes stand up self defense. You'll need to see what is available in your area.

BTW - fighting multiple attackers (especially if you are unarmed) is always a risky proposition no matter what art you study.

*(Training sport ground fighting will still help you build some skills and attributes which can be very useful in a real fight or self-defense situation. It's just missing some key elements.)


----------



## Kickboxer101

Oh boy lets try not to start one of these arguments again. The real answer its all good and it's better than absolutely nothing


----------



## Tez3

Leo89 said:


> You liek it? Never heard of anyone "lieking" anything.
> 
> It's normal to like things though.



Urban Dictionary: liek

Best to write plain English though.


----------



## frank raud

Zephyor said:


> If you say self defence, you say 60% BJJ, it has a big reputation towards this direction.  But how good is it? o n1v1 situation you can end the fight with an armbar per-say or a throw but getting yourself o nthe groudn too is not a good idea if the bloke you're fighting has his mates with him. I liek the concept of BJJ but its hard sice i have to choose between 2 great arts and there's such little time


So, if you throw someone, do you have to go to the round with them?


----------



## Kenposcholar

Most people would recommend getting a solid stand-up game & ground game. If I had to choose one or the other, then I would choose stand-up w/ practice to prevent being grounded. Then practice some limited ground techniques to counter the majority of untrained people. The _majority _of people that are trained don't fight and the _majority _of fights caused are from untrained and unintelligent people.


----------



## Steve

Most people would recommend getting a solid stand-up game & ground game. If I had to choose one or the other, then I would choose grappling with practice to prevent being grounded.  Then practice some limited striking techniques to counter the majority of untrained people. The _majority _of people that are trained don't fight and the _majority _of fights caused are from untrained and unintelligent people.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> BTW - fighting multiple attackers (especially if you are unarmed) is always a risky proposition no matter what art you study.


Reminds me of another great exchange from the book I'm reading right now (The Pale Horseman by Bernard Cromwell).  Fun book.



> "They're coming," Iseult said, watching the five men clamber into the small boat.
> 
> "You want me to kill them?"
> 
> "You can?" She looked hopeful.
> 
> "No," I said, "so let's go."


 If only martial artists were always o honest in their self-appraisal before selling their product to an unsuspecting public.


----------



## Kenposcholar

Steve said:


> Most people would recommend getting a solid stand-up game & ground game. If I had to choose one or the other, then I would choose grappling with practice to prevent being grounded.  Then practice some limited striking techniques to counter the majority of untrained people. The _majority _of people that are trained don't fight and the _majority _of fights caused are from untrained and unintelligent people.



*This made me laugh out loud.* Love it. My preference is to avoid grounding myself while negating the opponent's attack and placing them in a less desirable position. Whatever training reaches that end goal works for me!


----------



## drop bear

frank raud said:


> So, if you throw someone, do you have to go to the round with them?



Depends how many times they get back up.


----------



## drop bear

Kickboxer101 said:


> Oh boy lets try not to start one of these arguments again. The real answer its all good and it's better than absolutely nothing



Let's not start an argument.  And then you took a side in that argument?


----------



## Kickboxer101

drop bear said:


> Let's not start an argument.  And then you took a side in that argument?


Bye


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> How good it is for self defense largely depends on how it is taught. Some BJJ academies spend 98% of their time working exclusively on ground fighting and in a sport context.* Others cover a more balanced curriculum which includes stand up self defense. You'll need to see what is available in your area.
> 
> BTW - fighting multiple attackers (especially if you are unarmed) is always a risky proposition no matter what art you study.
> 
> *(Training sport ground fighting will still help you build some skills and attributes which can be very useful in a real fight or self-defense situation. It's just missing some key elements.)


Pretty much this.  I would also add, if you are talking TMA, there are in my experience fewer "pure" striking arts than those with some degree of striking and grappling, though admittedly not necessarily a full on ground game".  I spar with a co-worker who is a huge BJJ guy.  He does striking and is good at it but for him it is simply as a bridge to begin his grappling game.  For what I currently study (if I go purist and don't resort to techniques I used to study from Judo and such), there is a fair bit of grappling (though more used in Kali) but it isn't THE focus.  It's there for when other things fail and that is the opening you have or to get out of a ground game ASAP.  It's especially important on the Kali side in the event you lose your weapon or if your opponent gets the drop on you and you need time to deploy your weapon.

So really in the end I would say the best Martial Art for self defense is the one that feels most right to you.  You will train harder, learn skills faster and overall be better at it, and that is what is most important.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## stonewall1350

Zephyor said:


> If you say self defence, you say 60% BJJ, it has a big reputation towards this direction.  But how good is it? o n1v1 situation you can end the fight with an armbar per-say or a throw but getting yourself o nthe groudn too is not a good idea if the bloke you're fighting has his mates with him. I liek the concept of BJJ but its hard sice i have to choose between 2 great arts and there's such little time



It will have been said here already. And I have a guy who is a Kung fu man in my class who takes our class for 1 specific reason: you NEED to know how to get OFF THE GROUND. Period. You don't have to be a BJJ wizard to do that. But you SHOULD learn the concepts. 

1) Falling
2) Shrimps
3) Bridges
4) Sweeps
5) Keeping your legs between you and a standing opponent. 
6) Guard Recovery

A) A takedown on an opponent off your back if you enjoy the sport. 

1-6 I'm sure there are other important bits off the ground, but if I ended up in a 1 on 1 against a guy who doesn't know these things and I took him off his feet? He is toast. So best to take that into consideration. 

I excluded standing because that is not really what I'm thinking is classically thought of when thinking about BJJ. 

A- is bonus material


----------



## Paul_D

Zephyor said:


> If you say self defence, you say 60% BJJ


Do you?


----------



## Skullpunch

If you're worried about multiple attackers then you need to focus on your 400 meter dash time and maybe some weapons training, not whether bjj > karate and boxing or vice versa.


----------



## Hanzou

Skullpunch said:


> If you're worried about multiple attackers then you need to focus on your 400 meter dash time and maybe some weapons training, not whether bjj > karate and boxing or vice versa.



Agreed. I would also recommend getting some friends so that you limit the amount of time you're walking around by yourself.


----------



## FriedRice

Why is the BJJ/Grappler, always the lonely loser with no friends and usually gets ganged up in these scenarios. The regular streets of Brazil are pretty rough, and these aren't even the rough streets yet. And they're not sue-happy like we are, so lots of problems are easily solved with street fights. BJJ does pretty well there.


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> Why is the BJJ/Grappler, always the lonely loser with no friends and usually gets ganged up in these scenarios. The regular streets of Brazil are pretty rough, and these aren't even the rough streets yet. And they're not sue-happy like we are, so lots of problems are easily solved with street fights. BJJ does pretty well there.



There is actually a BIG difference between the "standard" BJJ taught at say most Gracie schools and self defense BJJ though.  I will try to find the video but Rener and Ryron themselves have done more than  one video on how there are BIG differences between competition BJJ and "street" BJJ and how even schools with the Gracie logo sometimes only teach the former and not the later.

Your analogy also fails for another reason.  Wing Chun, as an example, earned it's reputation in street fights and challenge matches in Hong Kong and still does today... BUT here in the US how many instructors do you think teach it as a "street fighting" art and not simply a "competition" art.

In the end though, I don't think anyone is saying "the BJJ/Grppler" guy is always "lonely".  What they are saying is that you need to select you art and, perhaps just as important, your instructor with the idea that you are training for that worst case scenario where you are alone and out numbered.  Otherwise what is the point of training for self defense.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> There is actually a BIG difference between the "standard" BJJ taught at say most Gracie schools and self defense BJJ though.  I will try to find the video but Rener and Ryron themselves have done more than  one video on how there are BIG differences between competition BJJ and "street" BJJ and how even schools with the Gracie logo sometimes only teach the former and not the later.



Rener and Ryron are also selling BJJ belt promotions online and takes 2 hours to explain something with 10 minutes of contents. They are not the final authority of BJJ.



> Your analogy also fails for another reason.  Wing Chun, as an example, earned it's reputation in street fights and challenge matches in Hong Kong and still does today... BUT here in the US how many instructors do you think teach it as a "street fighting" art and not simply a "competition" art.



Well what you fail at, I would guess, would be your lack of experience in actual fighting in the street and in the ring. Considering the training involved in BJJ to earn the 1st promotion to Blue belt in "competition" BJJ, I would give the huge advantage to the BJJ'er doing very well in a self defense situation vs. mostly untrained, fat people in the street.



> In the end though, I don't think anyone is saying "the BJJ/Grppler" guy is always "lonely".



Yes they are. You guys are doing this often with your saying how BJJ won't work vs. multiple opponents. This also tells me that you don't really understand what you're looking at when you see BJJ'er train. 



> What they are saying is that you need to select you art and, perhaps just as important, your instructor with the idea that you are training for that worst case scenario where you are alone and out numbered.  Otherwise what is the point of training for self defense.



But see, the reality though is that most Self Defense type training are usual way lower on the level of training than, say BJJ.


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> Rener and Ryron are also selling BJJ belt promotions online and takes 2 hours to explain something with 10 minutes of contents. They are not the final authority of BJJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Well what you fail at, I would guess, would be your lack of experience in actual fighting in the street and in the ring. Considering the training involved in BJJ to earn the 1st promotion to Blue belt in "competition" BJJ, I would give the huge advantage to the BJJ'er doing very well in a self defense situation vs. mostly untrained, fat people in the street.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are. You guys are doing this often with your saying how BJJ won't work vs. multiple opponents. This also tells me that you don't really understand what you're looking at when you see BJJ'er train.
> 
> 
> 
> But see, the reality though is that most Self Defense type training are usual way lower on the level of training than, say BJJ.


I am actually very experienced in fighting in the street, I have worked in what some would call a "combat zone" community  for 19 years now and many suspects tend to not wish to come along quietly.  Once you have that experience you can look at what is done in competition and see what would and what would not be practical on the street.

No one btw is saying "nope, never going to work, not even a little bit" when it comes to BJJ.  That are simply pointing out that BJJ, as typically taught, has potential weaknesses in a street environment.  Also guess what, some arts that have fewer potential weakness on the street have more in the ring.  The potential in either case being determined by the particular circumstances/environment.

As an example, lets forget about the potential for multiple attackers.  Am I going to want to go to the ground on tarmac with broken glass and gravel?  Am I going to want to do so in a drug house with needles on the floor, or in a living room with the kids Legos everywhere?  No I don't want to.  This doesn't mean all BJJ techniques are usless but it does mean that some of the techniques some people see as part of BJJ's "Bread and Butter" are less practical.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> I am actually very experienced in fighting in the street, I have worked in what some would call a "combat zone" community  for 19 years now and many suspects tend to not wish to come along quietly.  Once you have that experience you can look at what is done in competition and see what would and what would not be practical on the street.



I've been in many street fights too. But if you're a Cop, then your fights are probably different and not the same as when civilians fight....where they don't have to worry about felony assault on a cop, etc.. I've train with many cops, feds, soldiers, etc. throughout the years and currently. The street cops are better than all of the above when it comes to H2H sparring, hard for KO's. But if these cops have nothing other than their training from their perspective dept., then they're about an above average, White Belt....and would get whooped by a low level amateur MMA fighter, usually.



> As an example, lets forget about the potential for multiple attackers.  Am I going to want to go to the ground on tarmac with broken glass and gravel?  Am I going to want to do so in a drug house with needles on the floor, or in a living room with the kids Legos everywhere?  No I don't want to.  This doesn't mean all BJJ techniques are usless but it does mean that some of the techniques some people see as part of BJJ's "Bread and Butter" are less practical.



How do you think that a pure BJJ guy would go to the ground in a street fight? Can you elaborate on the steps and such?


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> I've been in many street fights too. But if you're a Cop, then your fights are probably different and not the same as when civilians fight....where they don't have to worry about felony assault on a cop, etc.. I've train with many cops, feds, soldiers, etc. throughout the years and currently. The street cops are better than all of the above when it comes to H2H sparring, hard for KO's. But if these cops have nothing other than their training from their perspective dept., then they're about an above average, White Belt....and would get whooped by a low level amateur MMA fighter, usually.



I tend to agree regarding those who are only trained via their department for the most part especially since such training is far from consistent.  Very often the reason Street Cops are effective is simply because of raw experience.  I tend to use the term "experienced brawler" in that regard.  This is one of the reasons however I spend my own dime to study under a former LE Operator who is a Sifu of Wing Chun (TWC) and a Guro of Inosanto Kali.



> How do you think that a pure BJJ guy would go to the ground in a street fight? Can you elaborate on the steps and such?



I'll answer this is two parts.  First what I have seen over the last year and half, though not BJJ specific, rather a very skilled Collegiate Wrestler.  He had gotten a number of concussions apprehending suspects.  I was finally present for one and watched him do a takedown that works well on the mat but not on the street because of tarmac.  While we got the suspect in custody he basically rang his own bell as the nature of the takedown naturally had his head coming in contact with the street.

As for BJJ directly we do have a couple of BJJ guys I work with who have a tendency to do what I USED to do based on my Yoshinkan Aikido and Judo training (I have only found my current teacher in the last few years.). Namely going to the ground and using arm bars, rear naked chokes (if justified) and other restraints that have a dominant position on the ground in a similar fashion.  Now with the Kevlar the chance of jacking up your back and the like is slim but legs, heads and arms can still get banged/cut up etc.  One of the things I really appreciate from my Kali training (which has a fair amount of grappling) is that, being also a heavily weapon focused system) it helped me increase my focus to standing grappling or achieving a dominant position on top of my opponent if I HAVE to go for he ground.

As you say though my preference may be in large part due to the LEO focus, maintaining weapon retention, needing to be able to quickly disengage to go for a tool or to address a new threat etc.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> it helped me increase my focus to standing grappling or achieving a dominant position on top of my opponent if I HAVE to go for he ground



What grappling did you do previously that didn't focus on top position or dominant grappling?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I'll answer this is two parts. First what I have seen over the last year and half, though not BJJ specific, rather a very skilled Collegiate Wrestler. He had gotten a number of concussions apprehending suspects. I was finally present for one and watched him do a takedown that works well on the mat but not on the street because of tarmac. While we got the suspect in custody he basically rang his own bell as the nature of the takedown naturally had his head coming in contact with the street.



And I have never seen a wrestler choose to bounce his head off the mat. That is just silly. You can knock yourself out doing that


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And I have never seen a wrestler choose to bounce his head off the mat. That is just silly. You can knock yourself out doing that



It's not a matter of literally bouncing your head off the mat. It's a matter of a takedown that will have your head contact the street and there are takedowns they do that and with a fully resisting suspect the force of your head striking the ground can be intensified period so something that on a mat would be a slight bump is intensified by the fact that you aren't Lansing against a more forgiving surface.

In response to your previous question I didn't say that the other grappling Arts I learned, in my case a form of Aikido and Judo, lack top mounts, standing grappling etc.  of course they do.  They have, in my experience, a balance of top, rear and "under", positions of control.  The thing is that with that much variety you can find yourself instinctively going for a control that provides greater control and may be physically easier to engage, due to positioning even if the "street" environment/situation may say it's not the best idea.  By saying "focus" the study of Kali has made me more environmentally and situationally aware.  I'll explain the various reasons why.

1. because it is weapons heavy, to include knives, it makes you constantly think about disengaging if control isn't assured.  We will even train at times with one or both partners having concealed training blades so you need to plan and react with that in mind.
2. We will spar against multiple attackers.  Sometimes all three coming at once, other times in stages where we have no idea when and how many will join the gray.
3. We will occasionally (very occasionally) do grappling training without the use of mats.

There are other things, and maybe it has as much to do with the nature of the training as the art, but by focus I mean it helps me to personally focus my mind on the standing/top control.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> It's not a matter of literally bouncing your head off the mat. It's a matter of a takedown that will have your head contact the street and there are takedowns they do that and with a fully resisting suspect the force of your head striking the ground can be intensified period so something that on a mat would be a slight bump is intensified by the fact that you aren't Lansing against a more forgiving surface.



what takedown is that?


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> In response to your previous question I didn't say that the other grappling Arts I learned, in my case a form of Aikido and Judo, lack top mounts, standing grappling etc. of course they do. They have, in my experience, a balance of top, rear and "under", positions of control. The thing is that with that much variety you can find yourself instinctively going for a control that provides greater control and may be physically easier to engage, due to positioning even if the "street" environment/situation may say it's not the best idea. By saying "focus" the study of Kali has made me more environmentally and situationally aware. I'll explain the various reasons why.
> 
> 1. because it is weapons heavy, to include knives, it makes you constantly think about disengaging if control isn't assured. We will even train at times with one or both partners having concealed training blades so you need to plan and react with that in mind.
> 2. We will spar against multiple attackers. Sometimes all three coming at once, other times in stages where we have no idea when and how many will join the gray.
> 3. We will occasionally (very occasionally) do grappling training without the use of mats.
> 
> There are other things, and maybe it has as much to do with the nature of the training as the art, but by focus I mean it helps me to personally focus my mind on the standing/top control.



So you did a jits or something? where you went jumping of mount to find subs? 

Yeah. we dont really endorse that sort of thing either.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So you did a jits or something? where you went jumping of mount to find subs?
> 
> Yeah. we dont really endorse that sort of thing either.



Not having ever been a Collegiate Wrestler I wouldn't know the name of the takedown but when I run into the officer I will ask, if it even has a specific name.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So you did a jits or something? where you went jumping of mount to find subs?
> 
> Yeah. we dont really endorse that sort of thing either.



It's not jumping off a mount to find another subject, if I understand you correctly.  My primary purpose is to maintain control of the suspect I am already dealing with.  However, if my control was not adequate and the suspect pulls a concealed weapon I may need to disengage FAST so I can draw my firearm or another tool. I may also have to disengage suddenly if additional suspects decide to join in the "fun" or the location becomes otherwise unsafe, that kinda thing.  The fact that Kali always assumed a weapon in on the opponent, or that they can turn something in their environment into a weapon, very much reinforces the methods that are best suited to such a rapid disengagement.  

This isn't to say that if you study something different you may won't have this mindset btw, it is simply intrinsic to Kali and so makes the focus easier for me.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> I am actually very experienced in fighting in the street, I have worked in what some would call a "combat zone" community  for 19 years now and many suspects tend to not wish to come along quietly.  Once you have that experience you can look at what is done in competition and see what would and what would not be practical on the street.
> 
> No one btw is saying "nope, never going to work, not even a little bit" when it comes to BJJ.  That are simply pointing out that BJJ, as typically taught, has potential weaknesses in a street environment.  Also guess what, some arts that have fewer potential weakness on the street have more in the ring.  The potential in either case being determined by the particular circumstances/environment.
> 
> As an example, lets forget about the potential for multiple attackers.  Am I going to want to go to the ground on tarmac with broken glass and gravel?  Am I going to want to do so in a drug house with needles on the floor, or in a living room with the kids Legos everywhere?  No I don't want to.  This doesn't mean all BJJ techniques are usless but it does mean that some of the techniques some people see as part of BJJ's "Bread and Butter" are less practical.


Interesting turn to the discussion.    I do have one question.  How would someone who doesn't work as a professional in a "combat zone" community for 19 years become competent at fighting on the street?  You've had ample opportunity to hone your skill.  What about someone who doesn't routinely fight on the street as a part of their profession?  Even if they learn the "right" skills in the laboratory of the gym, without some means to apply it in real time in context, there will be a functional limit on how competent they can become.  Wouldn't there?


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Interesting turn to the discussion.    I do have one question.  How would someone who doesn't work as a professional in a "combat zone" community for 19 years become competent at fighting on the street?  You've had ample opportunity to hone your skill.  What about someone who doesn't routinely fight on the street as a part of their profession?  Even if they learn the "right" skills in the laboratory of the gym, without some means to apply it in real time in context, there will be a functional limit on how competent they can become.  Wouldn't there?


I think the right instructor can do it if there is adequate pressure testing like I noted later in the thread.  Do some training/sparring without mats, we even sometimes use the folding mats as obstacles.  Face multiple opponents, sometimes in stages etc.

That is one of the reasons my search for my current instructor was a year long search.  There is also a Krav Maga "school" near me that holds classes 365 rain or shine in a local park that was an option but I wanted to weapons training from Kali as well.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> I'll answer this is two parts.  First what I have seen over the last year and half, though not BJJ specific, rather a very skilled Collegiate Wrestler.  He had gotten a number of concussions apprehending suspects.  I was finally present for one and watched him do a takedown that works well on the mat but not on the street because of tarmac.  While we got the suspect in custody he basically rang his own bell as the nature of the takedown naturally had his head coming in contact with the street.



Sounds like the Collegiate Wrestlers weren't very good at wrestling. Many people say that "they wrestled in college"...and that usually means they took a Wrestling class for 2-4 easy, elective credits. I took Bowling, Weight Lifting and Racquetball, myself for those easy credits to help my GPA. In competition, the mat is right over a wooden floor. While in most gyms (where 95% of the wrestling takes place) that are rented warehouses, the mats (often only 1 layer), is right over cement flooring.  It's not that soft, although still softer than the street. But for a good Wrestler to concuss his own self in a single or double leg...often, then he's just not that good. Now it could happen as no one's perfect....but dudes often make up big fish stories in the locker room.



> As for BJJ directly we do have a couple of BJJ guys I work with


 
You still haven't answered my question as to how someone with only BJJ training (about 2 years/Blue belt), would take down someone in the street?  I'm look for step by step.....not necessarily looking to catch you on mistakes, since you don't train BJJ.....just to see if I can show you that BJJ isn't limited to what you think it is.


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> Sounds like the Collegiate Wrestlers weren't very good at wrestling. Many people say that "they wrestled in college"...and that usually means they took a Wrestling class for 2-4 easy, elective credits. I took Bowling, Weight Lifting and Racquetball, myself for those easy credits to help my GPA. In competition, the mat is right over a wooden floor. While in most gyms (where 95% of the wrestling takes place) that are rented warehouses, the mats (often only 1 layer), is right over cement flooring.  It's not that soft, although still softer than the street. But for a good Wrestler to concuss his own self in a single or double leg...often, then he's just not that good. Now it could happen as no one's perfect....but dudes often make up big fish stories in the locker room.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question as to how someone with only BJJ training (about 2 years/Blue belt), would take down someone in the street?  I'm look for step by step.....not necessarily looking to catch you on mistakes, since you don't train BJJ.....just to see if I can show you that BJJ isn't limited to what you think it is.


Well he was all State in High School and Nationally ranked (albiet division 3) and he just stopped coaching High School due to time.  Like I clarified later though it's more an incidental impact exacerbated by two things.  

1. Another wrestler knows how to "fall" in order to prevent injury to themselves, the term for this I am familiar with is ukemi.  A consequence of being good at "falling" however is that you reduced the chance of your opponent also being injured as a consequence.  You rarely get that on the street.

2. Tarmac doesn't give when the above happens.

Regarding BJJ I am not talking about the take down itself.  I am talking about the "end", for lack of a better term.  Martial arts is all about muscle memory and there are some BJJ techniques that, imo, create issues in street scenarios.  Holds/restraints that limit the ability to disengage if circumstances demand it or your position may be one where in the very environment can cause pain or injury (broken glass, Legos etc.). The muscle memory comes in two told.  First you should be trained to use A. The most effective technique and B.  Move to the most "convenient" "end"  technique.  Sometimes however environmental concerns can make what is convenient in the gym or the most practical technique to have practical issues.

Now there are plenty of techniques that exist in BJJ that can account for the environment and street fight Dynamics BUT, imo, you need to train that way to build the proper muscle memory and the gyms in my area at least don't train with these "street" considerations in mind.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> 1. Another wrestler knows how to "fall" in order to prevent injury to themselves, the term for this I am familiar with is ukemi. A consequence of being good at "falling" however is that you reduced the chance of your opponent also being injured as a consequence. You rarely get that on the street.
> 
> 2. Tarmac doesn't give when the above happens.



No I dont think that is the case.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Now there are plenty of techniques that exist in BJJ that can account for the environment and street fight Dynamics BUT, imo, you need to train that way to build the proper muscle memory and the gyms in my area at least don't train with these "street" considerations in mind.



You will find they are sports specific jits that does that. Basic jits still has the tools to focus on topside submissions. limb control and all these elements of concern you have.

MMA has these same variables. Sometimes for different reasons. Getting punched rather than getting knifed. Means you dont want to get under people. Or get caught in a grapple you might lose.

Good jitsers generally dont have an issue with these transitions.

I would be less concerned with street considerations and more concerned with techniques that work.

edit.

Let me rephrase that a bit. For self defence your technique should work in all three environments.

So it should work in the gym by you.

It should work in competition by quality guys.

And it should be appropriate to the environment.

Otherwise you create these weak links that can be taken advantage of.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> Well he was all State in High School and Nationally ranked (albiet division 3) and he just stopped coaching High School due to time.  Like I clarified later though it's more an incidental impact exacerbated by two things.
> 
> 1. Another wrestler knows how to "fall" in order to prevent injury to themselves, the term for this I am familiar with is ukemi.  A consequence of being good at "falling" however is that you reduced the chance of your opponent also being injured as a consequence.  You rarely get that on the street.



It depends. When I'm throwing a beginner, I do the technique, but let them down easy. Against experienced people, then I assume that they know how to break-fall. If they get KO'ed, then hey, it happens.  In hard sparring or competition fight, I'm looking to knock them the F out, and doing that to them with a throw + slam + my body weight crashing down on them = normalcy. So someone who's at that high level of a Wrestler, concussing himself out like that in the street, is pretty sloppy then....although maybe he's just out of practice.



> 2. Tarmac doesn't give when the above happens.



My point was that there's not that much difference with a single layer mat on top a warehouse cement flooring. At one gym, all they had was one layer of the jigsaw puzzle mats for a traditional Jujutsu school; and that was a lot of throwing.



> Regarding BJJ I am not talking about the take down itself.  I am talking about the "end", for lack of a better term.  Martial arts is all about muscle memory and there are some BJJ techniques that, imo, create issues in street scenarios.  Holds/restraints that limit the ability to disengage if circumstances demand it or your position may be one where in the very environment can cause pain or injury (broken glass, Legos etc.). The muscle memory comes in two told.  First you should be trained to use A. The most effective technique and B.  Move to the most "convenient" "end"  technique.  Sometimes however environmental concerns can make what is convenient in the gym or the most practical technique to have practical issues.
> 
> Now there are plenty of techniques that exist in BJJ that can account for the environment and street fight Dynamics BUT, imo, you need to train that way to build the proper muscle memory and the gyms in my area at least don't train with these "street" considerations in mind.



Ok, so what are these muscle memory flaws are you talking about? I'm asking you to be specific. What are these flawed techniques of BJJ that would endanger them in the street full of broken glass and needles?


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> It depends. When I'm throwing a beginner, I do the technique, but let them down easy. Against experienced people, then I assume that they know how to break-fall. If they get KO'ed, then hey, it happens.  In hard sparring or competition fight, I'm looking to knock them the F out, and doing that to them with a throw + slam + my body weight crashing down on them = normalcy. So someone who's at that high level of a Wrestler, concussing himself out like that in the street, is pretty sloppy then....although maybe he's just out of practice.



Yes but we can't just say "I am looking to knock them the F-out."  We have "red zones", "yellow zones" and "green zones" in terms of where we can strike or, via other techniques, cause inanimate objects to strike intentionally.  If I knock someone out, I need to be able to justify it in a very objective manner.  Dropping someone on their head (so to speak) intentionally has to be justified specifically and if my UoF memos keep saying "during the course of the takedown the suspect accidentally struck his head" when strikes to the head were not justified to quote an old TV show "Lucy you have a lot of explaining to do."  

That, in combination with the fact the other person doesn't know what to do but you can't "go easy" can create issues.  I will give you and extreme example.  One day I was alone in an ER with a mentally ill subject I had to take down.  During the struggle we moved and when I finally started the takedown I suddenly noticed that I had the suspect headed head first into plate glass next to the ER's automatic door.  I had two choices, continue the takedown and risk the suspect going face first through it risking serious bodily injury, that wasn't justifed, or "abort" and risk minor to moderate injury to myself to maintain control.  Due to the circumstances I did the later and jacked the tendons in one elbow.  Now in a "generic" self-defense scenario this decision may not have been as important so as I said elsewhere I may be inserting issues that more generic self defense scenarios don't need to worry about.



> Ok, so what are these muscle memory flaws are you talking about? I'm asking you to be specific. What are these flawed techniques of BJJ that would endanger them in the street full of broken glass and needles?



You may find yourself in a position where to get into a "top mount" like say this







that permits easier disengagement and isolates you from the ground and possible environmental injury BUT to get here it may require an extra move or two.  Muscle memory, and its typical focus on efficiency, may have you instinctively have you move to an "end game" that resembles 





or





Now I see these as, not always but sometimes, problematic (especially in my line of work) because you never know what surface you are on as well as the fact that such positions create issues with rapid disengagement that circumstances may dictate (a weapon drawn, your own weapon retention, additional assailants joining the fray etc.)

Again we may be talking about concerns that I encounter more often than others, mileage may vary.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Yes but we can't just say "I am looking to knock them the F-out." We have "red zones", "yellow zones" and "green zones" in terms of where we can strike or, via other techniques, cause inanimate objects to strike intentionally. If I knock someone out, I need to be able to justify it in a very objective manner. Dropping someone on their head (so to speak) intentionally has to be justified specifically and if my UoF memos keep saying "during the course of the takedown the suspect accidentally struck his head" when strikes to the head were not justified to quote an old TV show "Lucy you have a lot of explaining to do."
> 
> That, in combination with the fact the other person doesn't know what to do but you can't "go easy" can create issues. I will give you and extreme example. One day I was alone in an ER with a mentally ill subject I had to take down. During the struggle we moved and when I finally started the takedown I suddenly noticed that I had the suspect headed head first into plate glass next to the ER's automatic door. I had two choices, continue the takedown and risk the suspect going face first through it risking serious bodily injury, that wasn't justifed, or "abort" and risk minor to moderate injury to myself to maintain control. Due to the circumstances I did the later and jacked the tendons in one elbow. Now in a "generic" self-defense scenario this decision may not have been as important so as I said elsewhere I may be inserting issues that more generic self defense scenarios don't need to worry about



That is not the case.

If you can actually wrestle. You can put a guy down easily even if they are really fighing you. That is part of the training. Now you generally don't in a fight because there is more risk of them stuffing your take down or recovering.


But if you have the advantage then you can employ nice techniques.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Now I see these as, not always but sometimes, problematic (especially in my line of work) because you never know what surface you are on as well as the fact that such positions create issues with rapid disengagement that circumstances may dictate (a weapon drawn, your own weapon retention, additional assailants joining the fray etc.)
> 
> Again we may be talking about concerns that I encounter more often than others, mileage may vary



So the issue with BJJ is you would have to give some moves preference over others depending on the situation.

And you couldn't just do that?

Because that is exactly what they do for MMA.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> That is not the case.
> 
> If you can actually wrestle. You can put a guy down easily even if they are really fighing you. That is part of the training. Now you generally don't in a fight because there is more risk of them stuffing your take down or recovering.
> 
> 
> But if you have the advantage then you can employ nice techniques.



This I think shows that you don't actually take into account all the variables we deal with; relative size, strength, real resistance and the most important....

When I deal with someone in that way, no exaggeration, they are saying "he will steal my freedom."  I have dealt with 90lbs girls who resisted so forcefully I feared they would break their own arm because they knew what was coming.  That loss of a "right" creates a dynamic no octagon, no ring, no "typical" bar room brawl can replicate.  

I only say this because I was once a soldier so I know bar room brawls, heck barracks brawls.  This is something different though and that is why I so often admit that my point of view may be from the singular point of view of my near 2 decade career and not a universal rule.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> This I think shows that you don't actually take into account all the variables we deal with; relative size, strength, real resistance and the most important....
> 
> When I deal with someone in that way, no exaggeration, they are saying "he will steal my freedom."  I have dealt with 90lbs girls who resisted so forcefully I feared they would break their own arm because they knew what was coming.  That loss of a "right" creates a dynamic no octagon, no ring, no "typical" bar room brawl can replicate.
> 
> I only say this because I was once a soldier so I know bar room brawls, heck barracks brawls.  This is something different though and that is why I so often admit that my point of view may be from the singular point of view of my near 2 decade career and not a universal rule.



Yeah. because i have never arrested people.

Anyway I had a chat to a mate of mine Derek heckle who has a bit of wrestling and asked him if there is wrestling takedowns that could cause you to bang your head on the concrete. or mat. 

And.




Derek White-Gold Heckel Negative. I honestly can't think of a single takedown that allows my head to bounce off the mat/street unless I land terribly wrong.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> Yes but we can't just say "I am looking to knock them the F-out."  We have "red zones", "yellow zones" and "green zones" in terms of where we can strike or, via other techniques, cause inanimate objects to strike intentionally.  If I knock someone out, I need to be able to justify it in a very objective manner.  Dropping someone on their head (so to speak) intentionally has to be justified specifically and if my UoF memos keep saying "during the course of the takedown the suspect accidentally struck his head" when strikes to the head were not justified to quote an old TV show "Lucy you have a lot of explaining to do."



A skilled Wrestler at your cop friend's level, should no doubt, have the ability to take someone down at various levels from nice and light to smash him into the concrete, head first for the KO.   This would depend on the Perp's aggression, size, etc.  If he's KO'ing his own self in hard take-downs, then I suspect he's not that good of a Wrestler as he claims or he's way out of practice or something.



> That, in combination with the fact the other person doesn't know what to do but you can't "go easy" can create issues.  I will give you and extreme example.  One day I was alone in an ER with a mentally ill subject I had to take down.  During the struggle we moved and when I finally started the takedown I suddenly noticed that I had the suspect headed head first into plate glass next to the ER's automatic door.  I had two choices, continue the takedown and risk the suspect going face first through it risking serious bodily injury, that wasn't justifed, or "abort" and risk minor to moderate injury to myself to maintain control.  Due to the circumstances I did the later and jacked the tendons in one elbow.  Now in a "generic" self-defense scenario this decision may not have been as important so as I said elsewhere I may be inserting issues that more generic self defense scenarios don't need to worry about.



This shouldn't be that difficult for even a good Blue Belt in BJJ. When we train BJJ, we don't always go balls to the wall when sparring with everybody...usually only that hard vs. those of equal skills/rivals. The margin between locking someone in an armbar to get them to tap but not pop their elbow (causing 6-12 months of no training + rehab)...is quite slim. The armbar has to also be tight enough that they can't get out, especially if they're equally skilled. Attacks to the leg joints are much, much more slim. 



> You may find yourself in a position where to get into a "top mount" like say this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that permits easier disengagement and isolates you from the ground and possible environmental injury BUT to get here it may require an extra move or two.  Muscle memory, and its typical focus on efficiency, may have you instinctively have you move to an "end game" that resembles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see these as, not always but sometimes, problematic (especially in my line of work) because you never know what surface you are on as well as the fact that such positions create issues with rapid disengagement that circumstances may dictate (a weapon drawn, your own weapon retention, additional assailants joining the fray etc.)
> 
> Again we may be talking about concerns that I encounter more often than others, mileage may vary.



I really knew you were going to say this   . Although I also thought you were going to say that BJJ'ers will often jump guard too....glad you didn't though, so I was wrong on this one.

These pics that you posted, could happen with a BJJ only guy in the streets, but it doesn't necessarily have to. We know how to do standing armbars or wristlocks or even just a knee to the belly Kimura.  Some untrained person on the street is going get wrecked easily in a grappling match vs. a mere BJJ Blue belt...so there's really no need for the BB to put his back to the ground. 

I know all of this because there are so many Cops, Feds, Secret Service, etc. that comes to our gym for BJJ training ...mostly due to their Department's training being inferior. When they first come in, most of them are terrible. The decent to good ones (with only their department's training), are maybe at the level of our decent White Belts who aren't even close to being promoted to Blue yet. One of my long time Cop friend is a BJJ Black Belt who worked 20+ years as a cop in the ghettos of a major metro area....and much of his thug beatdowns to keep them in line, were way before the age of bodycams...so he's been in quite a few street fights. And he's also a big time Wrestler in his teens and now coaches Wrestling, etc.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> So the issue with BJJ is you would have to give some moves preference over others depending on the situation.
> 
> And you couldn't just do that?


It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... *if* you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.

I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.

On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.

In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. This was after I had _just_ explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.

I don't think it's particularly *hard* to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... *if* you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.
> 
> I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.
> 
> On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.
> 
> In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. This was after I had _just_ explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.
> 
> I don't think it's particularly *hard* to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.


And this basically illustrates my point.  More than a few times, here and elsewhere I have spoken not that "<insert art here> has issues", rather, "all to often <insert art here> is taught in a manner that is impractical for the street because the focus is on competition/sport.

@FriedRice this is my main point.  I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> And this basically illustrates my point.  More than a few times, here and elsewhere I have spoken not that "<insert art here> has issues", rather, "all to often <insert art here> is taught in a manner that is impractical for the street because the focus is on competition/sport.
> 
> @FriedRice this is my main point.  I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.



The thing is here though the art or the training doesn't define the level of street knowledge. That is just dependent on who turns up and what they know.

There is as much real world self defence knowledge in my MMA school as there is in a dedicated self defence school.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> @FriedRice this is my main point.  I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.



But you're speaking from your perspective as a cop with a badge and gun in a bad area.

Not everyone lives in a bad neighborhood. I used to live in North Philadelphia and went to high school there....look it up, it's a warzone. But now I live in a decent suburb. Then there are people who lives in multi million dollar, gated communities. The *real* street violence for them is cussing at some other rich broad over a parking space or something. But when it comes to training and real life application, you cannot go all out Krav Maga, death move on some old chick that's screaming at you over that parking space and claw her eyes out just because she stepped into your "kill zone".

BJJ only, is still usually, better than most other TMA's and especially the SD's. With MMA being the best, but still never guaranteed; which is why I also carry a gun and a knife. But you seem to think that BJJ'ers don't have the ability to assess situations...ie. "we're on the cement of a parking lot and not a matted floor, so it's probably not a good idea to jump guard...".


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... *if* you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.
> 
> I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.
> 
> On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.
> 
> In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. This was after I had _just_ explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.
> 
> I don't think it's particularly *hard* to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.



I think you have to train to solve problems. This idea that you need a formula for the street often goes to far. Can you fight on stairs? what if it is a wall and not a cage. What if there are two guys and not one?

Have the tools that you can use in different environments. Have the mind set to employ them.

people figure stuff out.


----------



## Steve

Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe.  Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't.  For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.

It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.  
So, how does one know?  That's the pickle.  Isn't it?  I have a theory.


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> But you're speaking from your perspective as a cop with a badge and gun in a bad area.
> 
> Not everyone lives in a bad neighborhood. I used to live in North Philadelphia and went to high school there....look it up, it's a warzone. But now I live in a decent suburb. Then there are people who lives in multi million dollar, gated communities. The *real* street violence for them is cussing at some other rich broad over a parking space or something. But when it comes to training and real life application, you cannot go all out Krav Maga, death move on some old chick that's screaming at you over that parking space and claw her eyes out just because she stepped into your "kill zone".
> 
> BJJ only, is still usually, better than most other TMA's and especially the SD's. With MMA being the best, but still never guaranteed; which is why I also carry a gun and a knife. But you seem to think that BJJ'ers don't have the ability to assess situations...ie. "we're on the cement of a parking lot and not a matted floor, so it's probably not a good idea to jump guard...".


I know the area quite well.  I am from Philly and the town I work in is sometimes called "Little Philly" by those who moved out to it . I  still remember a couple of "interesting" encounters I had visiting friends who lived on Clearfield near K&A lol.

I agree with your overall view of street violence and I am NOT questioning BJJ alone.  I actually apply the "it's the teacher" and "experience" to all Martial Arts.  I just believe any art, striking or grappling, that focuses exclusively (or near enough) on one of those particular methodologies ends up needing to lean more heavily on that experience or the instructor and if either isn't there they are at a disadvantage.  

The only reason I was addressing BJJ directly here is because that was the topic raised.  I can be a little anal retentive in that way in conversations, focusing on the specific topic at hand, sometimes almost myopically.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is as much real world self defence knowledge in my MMA school as there is in a dedicated self defence school.


I expect that is true. Taking the information from Tony's post (which aligns with my training experience), do you train for the difference in responses for the context? That's really the primary advantage, IME, of a (good) program that trains for self-defense. That can be done within the confines of a school that teaches for competition. Steve often makes some pretty good arguments that that might be a very good place to do so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think you have to train to solve problems. This idea that you need a formula for the street often goes to far. Can you fight on stairs? what if it is a wall and not a cage. What if there are two guys and not one?
> 
> Have the tools that you can use in different environments. Have the mind set to employ them.
> 
> people figure stuff out.


I agree. And that means training for contexts besides the anticipated sport context (for the MMA-based school). There are a lot of variations that could be used to develop this, and the most useful would be to train some specific variations/scenarios that may occur on the street, but are unlikely to occur in the ring. That's what Tony describes in his post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe.  Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't.  For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.
> 
> It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.
> So, how does one know?  That's the pickle.  Isn't it?  I have a theory.


I agree with that concept. I also think it's reasonable to include some training that improves your odds in both of those situations. That's not "trying to train for everything", but training for some of the less unlikely variations. In fact, I occasionally get that student who is really into the "what If". He wants to know what you could do if someone attacked a very specific way. I don't like dealing with all those, and you and DB have pointed out why in this thread. To your point, that would lead us down the rabbit hole of training for every possible scenario. And to DB's point, if we train to solve problems (primarily by understanding how and why the techniques work and some basic tactics/strategies for fighting), then it shouldn't be necessary to train for every problem, individually. Occasionally, I'll humor the asker and teach a response, mostly because it's a good place to teach some variation and problem-solving. Mind you, the response I teach will be one supplied by the asker, with some coaching to get to a useful response, if necessary. Often, if I decide to address the attack in question, I'll set each training group to solving that particular problem, then coach on their approach.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I expect that is true. Taking the information from Tony's post (which aligns with my training experience), do you train for the difference in responses for the context? That's really the primary advantage, IME, of a (good) program that trains for self-defense. That can be done within the confines of a school that teaches for competition. Steve often makes some pretty good arguments that that might be a very good place to do so.




I think this is the thing, if I understand correctly.  Imo people perhaps focus too much on a particular art in a global context, BJJ, MMA, Wing Chun, Krav Maga, Kali, don't care they focus too much on the art alone.  If I study BJJ at a place that is focused on competing in BJJ (not a self defense instructor) and I don't somehow on my own try to incorporate a more "street" oriented training, I will be at a disadvantage compared to someone who does have that additional orientation (pressure testing being equal).  Where BJJ, and MMA, have an advantage over most TMA's is not, again just my opinion, in the art itself but in the fact that most TMA's have crap pressure testing.

So imo a "self defense" ranking would look something like this...

1. Any proven MA that has pressure testing AND has quality, and varied, instruction in the various dynamics of real world self defense scenarios.
2. Any proven MA that has pressure testing that is learned by someone who either seeks out such scenario training on the side or experiences it for real irl.
3. Any proven MA that has pressure testing in it's own "bubble" (read competitive MAs)
4. Some of the modern systems that are designed around exploiting natural reflexes to assault and have some scenario testing.
5. DEAD LAST, TMAs with little to no pressure testing and that don't due scenario training.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> I know the area quite well.  I am from Philly and the town I work in is sometimes called "Little Philly" by those who moved out to it . I  still remember a couple of "interesting" encounters I had visiting friends who lived on Clearfield near K&A lol.
> .



OMG, that's pretty cool. I went to Olney High School. And I thought that you were in the UK or Australia.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe.  Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't.  For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.
> 
> It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.
> So, how does one know?  That's the pickle.  Isn't it?  I have a theory.



Hey, no fair - giving the "I have a theory" and then not giving said theory.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Hey, no fair - giving the "I have a theory" and then not giving said theory.



It is not exactly a secret theory.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> It is not exactly a secret theory.



No fair mind reading.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> No fair mind reading.



L


Buka said:


> No fair mind reading.



Think of it like a tresure hunt. 

Your first clue is. 

Mat Thornton.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Hey, no fair - giving the "I have a theory" and then not giving said theory.


its nothing I haven't said many times.   But I'll try it differently.  if I wanted to learn how to cook, I could buy a cookbook.  I would be able to learn, intellectually, the steps needed to cook.   Given enough time and effort, I might be able to get in a cooking forum and really impress people with my esoteric knowledge of the culinary arts.   I could define terms and correct people, and maybe even fool a few real chefs.  

But if I wanted to become a good cook, I would need to apply what I know intellectually by actually cooking meals.   Not just one, but many.  Over and over, and with intention to improve and grow.   Truly, the more I cook, the better at it I become.   Not every meal turns out, but failure is absolutely critical to the process.  it's the failures that really impart lessons that stick.  Without cooking, one cannot be a great cook.  And unless you've ruined a few dishes, you won't be able to improvise when things don't go just right.

And further, with every meal learned from a cookbook, and every tip gleaned from tv or from sharing a kitchen with another cook, you gain practical experience.  It's this experience that allows for innovation.   You can start to look at what you know and why you know it, and create new dishes.  

The person who is a professor, who knows a lot but cannot do a lot, is, at best, a mimic.  You can sometimes learn a lot from a mimic, but the best teachers are those who teach from experience.  

And eventually, people who do will outgrow the professor, once they realize he's not speaking from experience.  It's like this NSFW scene from the 40 year old virgin:  



 when you realize that the person who speaks with such confidence has never actually experienced it.   (This is a little naughty, but also pretty funny, and very apropos.)


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> its nothing I haven't said many times.   But I'll try it differently.  if I wanted to learn how to cook, I could buy a cookbook.  I would be able to learn, intellectually, the steps needed to cook.   Given enough time and effort, I might be able to get in a cooking forum and really impress people with my esoteric knowledge of the culinary arts.   I could define terms and correct people, and maybe even fool a few real chefs.
> 
> But if I wanted to become a good cook, I would need to apply what I know intellectually by actually cooking meals.   Not just one, but many.  Over and over, and with intention to improve and grow.   Truly, the more I cook, the better at it I become.   Not every meal turns out, but failure is absolutely critical to the process.  it's the failures that really impart lessons that stick.  Without cooking, one cannot be a great cook.  And unless you've ruined a few dishes, you won't be able to improvise when things don't go just right.
> 
> And further, with every meal learned from a cookbook, and every tip gleaned from tv or from sharing a kitchen with another cook, you gain practical experience.  It's this experience that allows for innovation.   You can start to look at what you know and why you know it, and create new dishes.
> 
> The person who is a professor, who knows a lot but cannot do a lot, is, at best, a mimic.  You can sometimes learn a lot from a mimic, but the best teachers are those who teach from experience.
> 
> And eventually, people who do will outgrow the professor, once they realize he's not speaking from experience.  It's like this NSFW scene from the 40 year old virgin:
> 
> 
> 
> when you realize that the person who speaks with such confidence has never actually experienced it.   (This is a little naughty, but also pretty funny, and very apropos.)



Well you could explain the interesting version.

Here was my boring one.


----------



## Juany118

FriedRice said:


> OMG, that's pretty cool. I went to Olney High School. And I thought that you were in the UK or Australia.



Lol cool indeed.  My Father taught in the Philly School District for like 30 years, not at Olney though.  Funny thing is Olney is now one of the Charter Schools.  Me I am a very lapsed Catholic so I was a LaSalle boy.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> *I think you have to train to solve problems*. This idea that you need a formula for the street often goes to far. Can you fight on stairs? what if it is a wall and not a cage. What if there are two guys and not one?
> 
> Have the tools that you can use in different environments. Have the mind set to employ them.
> 
> people figure stuff out.


I think the sentence I bolded is indeed key. You don't have to train _every_ scenario, although you should put some concentrated work on situations you know you are personally likely to encounter (Judo tournament, MMA match, restraining a psychotic patient, whatever). However you should train _different_ scenarios, even as one-offs, just to develop the mental flexibility so you get used to adapting on the fly.

There's a BJJ instructor in Louisville who recently posted this video of a class where he had his students do "sock-wrestling". Each partner wears a sock and they grapple with the goal of taking their opponent's sock off. This seems silly - it has no obvious direct application to either tournament competition or street self-defense. What it does do is train the students to use their skills to solve a novel problem on the fly. (As he points out, it also helps train awareness for protecting a particular body part when necessary.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think the sentence I bolded is indeed key. You don't have to train _every_ scenario, although you should put some concentrated work on situations you know you are personally likely to encounter (Judo tournament, MMA match, restraining a psychotic patient, whatever). However you should train _different_ scenarios, even as one-offs, just to develop the mental flexibility so you get used to adapting on the fly.
> 
> There's a BJJ instructor in Louisville who recently posted this video of a class where he had his students do "sock-wrestling". Each partner wears a sock and they grapple with the goal of taking their opponent's sock off. This seems silly - it has no obvious direct application to either tournament competition or street self-defense. What it does do is train the students to use their skills to solve a novel problem on the fly. (As he points out, it also helps train awareness for protecting a particular body part when necessary.)


I like that idea. I'm probably going to steal it from him. The idea, not the sock, 'cause that's nasty.


----------



## FriedRice

Juany118 said:


> Lol cool indeed.  My Father taught in the Philly School District for like 30 years, not at Olney though.  Funny thing is Olney is now one of the Charter Schools.  Me I am a very lapsed Catholic so I was a LaSalle boy.



Wow, that giant 5 story school is now chartered? That's great for that area. That school was wildly, freaky with its architecture....planned for some horror movie.  I haven't been back there in a long time and heard it's a lot worse of an area now.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think the sentence I bolded is indeed key. You don't have to train _every_ scenario, although you should put some concentrated work on situations you know you are personally likely to encounter (Judo tournament, MMA match, restraining a psychotic patient, whatever). However you should train _different_ scenarios, even as one-offs, just to develop the mental flexibility so you get used to adapting on the fly.
> 
> There's a BJJ instructor in Louisville who recently posted this video of a class where he had his students do "sock-wrestling". Each partner wears a sock and they grapple with the goal of taking their opponent's sock off. This seems silly - it has no obvious direct application to either tournament competition or street self-defense. What it does do is train the students to use their skills to solve a novel problem on the fly. (As he points out, it also helps train awareness for protecting a particular body part when necessary.)



I have done it. it is a different game. A lot of places where you think you are safe you are not.


----------



## Buka

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think the sentence I bolded is indeed key. You don't have to train _every_ scenario, although you should put some concentrated work on situations you know you are personally likely to encounter (Judo tournament, MMA match, restraining a psychotic patient, whatever). However you should train _different_ scenarios, even as one-offs, just to develop the mental flexibility so you get used to adapting on the fly.
> 
> There's a BJJ instructor in Louisville who recently posted this video of a class where he had his students do "sock-wrestling". Each partner wears a sock and they grapple with the goal of taking their opponent's sock off. This seems silly - it has no obvious direct application to either tournament competition or street self-defense. What it does do is train the students to use their skills to solve a novel problem on the fly. (As he points out, it also helps train awareness for protecting a particular body part when necessary.)



I agree. And your statement of "_so you get used to adapting on the fly_" is spot on. I believe being able to adapt is the most important thing in fighting, self defense, sparring, competing, whatever anyone wants to call it when people go at each other.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I like that idea. I'm probably going to steal it from him. The idea, not the sock, 'cause that's nasty.



I employed an idea like this a couple times. Once in class to see how it would work, testing it, then once when I was a-guesting at a seminar.

Give one guy a bottle. Of course, in my own... ah... personal style, the bottles in question were beer bottles. Bud Light as it happened. Something you'd want to keep, but not something you'd either kill/die about, eh? Anyway, the goal was to keep the bottle away, while their task was to get it out of your(their) hand. Talk about mobility and evasion practice. I think I underestimated the motivation level. 

Only thing I think I could have done to make it more combative would have been to be the first instructor teaching on the mat at a 7:00 a.m. start time and have the person holding a cup of coffee....


----------



## drop bear

our local pub does a version of that. Winner got $500. I had to break up the craziest fights some times.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Only thing I think I could have done to make it more combative would have been to be the first instructor teaching on the mat at a 7:00 a.m. start time and have the person holding a cup of coffee....


I don't think liability insurance covers that level of carnage.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I don't think liability insurance covers that level of carnage.


I had to get a rider if I wanted to do it again.


----------

