# Self Defense usage of the Grappling Arts



## stonewall1350

This is a question that comes through our gym from time to time, and it is also something I have been pontificating about as well. I know that I watch a lot of videos of street fights, self defense, concealed carry, and so on. And I know that the self defense classes I listen in on frequently discourage grappling. "You are on the ground and you are dead."

Well. I get that. But it isn't always your choice. So it makes me wonder. Does your class take into account the self defense side of grappling? Mine does not, but I am thinking about learning more. Especially because I'm a concealed carrier, I want every available option before the gun. And while I am well versed in BJJ/Judo, I want to add more in the punch defense and so on. So what do you pontificate about in this area as it relates to self defense? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

If you read my recent posts, you'll know that I do approach grappling from a self-defense standpoint.

Some basic points to cover in that regard:

Remember that grappling is not just on the ground.
Distance management is crucial.
Skill in preventing/negating strikes is crucial.
Clinching skills are important.
Practice in safely escaping bad positions on the ground and standing up is just as important as takedown practice.
Tactical sense - when to engage, when to disengage, environmental awareness, understanding appropriate use of force, etc, etc, can be just as important as technical skill.

Some more advanced topics:

Dealing with weapons,
Dealing with specific environmental considerations
Dealing with multiple attackers,
etc


----------



## drop bear

Mma sort of shares similar ideas to self defence In that being on your back getting punched is pretty awful. So standing up becomes a pretty important skill.  And that changes the order of positional dominance a bit.

So guard is no longer a 50/50 half guard is considered more half mount and mostly we will defend into turtle. Rather than re guard.  Just because there is more stand up opportunities.

Punching people on top also opens up a different order of positional dominance. And i don't have to progress a position anywhere near as much.  So say knee ride to arm bar?  Who cares just punch them. That sort of thing.

This also adds on to ideas about being taken down.  So there are ways of avoiding the traditional breakfall approach or the jump guard.  Which will get you back up a bit quicker.


----------



## drop bear

As far as standing vs ground vs multiple opponents you are not really safe standing up.  As soon as you turn your back on one guy you are open. If they grab you you are in a lot of trouble.

I have been on both sides of that equation and there is a different set of ideas that i think you should employ.


----------



## KangTsai

I think the social fearmongering of going to the ground has its points but is still way exaggerated. As for integrating into self defence, that's just applying what you know to what can happen. E.G. there's another guy around the corner - make it quick; the grapple-ee has a gun - do the best you can to stop them from getting to it.


----------



## JP3

A couple thoughts, unrelated to each other but to the O/P....

  In my/our classes, I do teach grappling as a SD tactical solution for folks, and I find that oftentimes women have absolutely no idea what it is like to be "held down."  It's not something that they have ever experienced (hopefully) as such is so culturally/socially stepped on, i.e. little boys don't wrestle with little girls (usually, unless you've got a big family or tons of friends the same age growing up as little kids, I suppose).

  I usually begin with some light discussion on the idea of, "You don't want to get knocked down, but when it happens, let's learn how we deal with it."  In order to start the talk in a way that the ladies int in the class won't be too....  shoot I don't know how to say this without making someone mad at me so I'll just write it out, getting scared (guys get scared, too) we always start with kesagatame (scarf hold) from judo.  Just lying on her back, the training partner also on the ground, but with chest wall up against chest wall, facing one another, the near hand holding the person on the ground's closer arm against the person on top's side, the other arm going around the person's neck.

I use kesa to talk about body positions, and movement, and to talk about parallels and differences in movement while standing (walking-running) on one's feet vs. movement while on the ground. We do the very first, 1st day of judo class everywhere escape from kesa until everyone's had some success with more than one person -- nspecifically including ladies escaping from men who outsize them being on top.

And then, we move right to the ugly one to deal with (not to trained people). Mount. Guard is bad enough if not trained, but mount is horrible if you are: A) smaller; and B) have no idea at all how to get away.  Think 220 lb guy with bad intentions on top via mount on 120 lb woman with no training.  Catch the wrists, punch in the short ribs to cause breathing difficulty, and... it goes to bad places.

The thing is, that with just a bit of training and knowledge, drilled often, that position and others like it, can be either defeated to the point where the person can get away, or the attacker gives up frustrated.  I know, I'm painting a rosy picture here, but that's how you have to teach it, not to be Debbie-Downer.  It takes ferocious will to get a much larger opponent off of you if they've already established a dominant position and you've not the advanced skillset to deal with it.  So, I give them a beginning tool to use, then scare the bejeezus out of them to let them know about the problem before they really need to have to deal with it, then slowly we work our way through it.

The above is Thought #1.

Thought #2 is that, turtling up against someone who doesn't care about rules isn't a good idea, as you just gave them your back, and kidney and spinal strikes are... debilitating.

Thought #3... for an extra, is that the other guy or guys/gals, are sometimes not "around the corner" but are right there at the same place.  Even if your BJJ is whiz-bang and your able to wind the one you are fighting with in short order, do yu believe that the other one, or two, won't do anything while you are pulling their buddy's arms off or choking him until his eyes pop out? Nope, they'll step in, literally, and most likely you'll feel kicks.  That is no fun at all.


----------



## stonewall1350

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.



How so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stonewall1350

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you read my recent posts, you'll know that I do approach grappling from a self-defense standpoint.
> 
> Some basic points to cover in that regard:
> 
> Remember that grappling is not just on the ground.
> Distance management is crucial.
> Skill in preventing/negating strikes is crucial.
> Clinching skills are important.
> Practice in safely escaping bad positions on the ground and standing up is just as important as takedown practice.
> Tactical sense - when to engage, when to disengage, environmental awareness, understanding appropriate use of force, etc, etc, can be just as important as technical skill.
> 
> Some more advanced topics:
> 
> Dealing with weapons,
> Dealing with specific environmental considerations
> Dealing with multiple attackers,
> etc



I'm honestly taking notes on that lol. Putting some of that in my phone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JP3

Pontificating.

I think that was the word.  I've not noted it being used as often in one short set of words before, so it was jarring, but I think you did use it correctly... but perhaps unintentionally.

To "pontificate" = express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic; or (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mas.

It didn't sound like you were in church, so.... I can see why he said that he didn't think that word means what You think it means.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

stonewall1350 said:


> This is a question that comes through our gym from time to time, and it is also something I have been pontificating about as well. I know that I watch a lot of videos of street fights, self defense, concealed carry, and so on. And I know that the self defense classes I listen in on frequently discourage grappling. "You are on the ground and you are dead."
> 
> Well. I get that. But it isn't always your choice. So it makes me wonder. Does your class take into account the self defense side of grappling? Mine does not, but I am thinking about learning more. Especially because I'm a concealed carrier, I want every available option before the gun. And while I am well versed in BJJ/Judo, I want to add more in the punch defense and so on. So what do you pontificate about in this area as it relates to self defense?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Grappling isn't just ground work. Grappling is about controlling the attacker's body. It can be used to stay off the ground, get them to the ground, control them on the ground, or get up off the ground.

I have experience with striking and grappling. Grappling has been my response in each self-defense use.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stonewall1350 said:


> How so?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I suspect you meant 'pondering'.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*IRT grappling is self defense oriented. ie: non sporting*  So we spend all of our time when grappling looking at it from a personal protection stand point.  We have a BJJ base with wrestling and FMA and Silat ground fighting mixed in.  Everything revolves around controlling position and dealing with potential weapons that can come into play.  We account for times when an opponent might reach for a knife, firearm, etc. or already has it out.  Obviously, we don't want to grapple unless it is a one on one situation.  *Yet, one must be prepared...*


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Grappling isn't just ground work. Grappling is about controlling the attacker's body. It can be used to stay off the ground, get them to the ground, control them on the ground, or get up off the ground.
> 
> I have experience with striking and grappling. Grappling has been my response in each self-defense use.[/QUOTE
> 
> Each use? Implies more than one, nifty.
> 
> As one aiki-bunny (term coined for us by a karate school next door to my old instructor's place, three... no four dojos ago now) to another, I've a question.  I'm sure you didn't haul off and go into a jab-cross-hook-uppercut-leg-kick combination, but are you certain you didn't have some aspect of atemi in the thing you did when you needed to use it?  I know it's possible to just reach out and get someone and toss them/lock them up with a quickstep, but usually we make it much, much easier with one of the little touch-taps. It's what I do, anyway.


----------



## Buka

The ground. Sometimes it's made to sound like a plane in another dimension. "It's not the place to be in a real fight, Other people will kick you, No good against multiples, It's harder to get away." 

It's just the ground for God sakes. It's been there, in contact with us, almost every minute of our lives. The place not to be in a real fight is on an escalator, or the edge of a building, or in car. The ground is just fine.

We used to train the ground in a lot of ways. Being surrounded by people who were going to kick or stomp (big difference) or jump on. You have to train using your arms to turn yourself (your feet) towards all directions, you have to use and train various umbrella' tehniques to shield your head. You have to practice quick, violent rolls towards surrounding legs. And you have to do that carefully to avoid injuries while training - you'll hyper-extend their knees and hyperextend/crush ankles if you go wild.

There's some great ways to train on the ground - or more appropriately, fight on the ground while getting up. And let's be honest here - how many of you actually practice getting up as fast as humanly possible? I'm talking the ground has just caught fire getting up. And how often do you do it? Because you should.

In any dojo I ever taught - getting up from any exercise, or two man set, or while sparring (after setting defensive/offensive guard - then deciding to get up) or stretching (other than really long splits) is done as if the ground just caught fire. I can't actually envision any other way off getting up off the ground in a dojo. Same way you get up in a fight, when you do get up,_ really_ f'n fast. I think you're nuts if you don't practice that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Buka said:


> There's some great ways to train on the ground - or more appropriately, fight on the ground while getting up. And let's be honest here - how many of you actually practice getting up as fast as humanly possible? I'm talking the ground has just caught fire getting up. And how often do you do it? Because you should.



I like to pretend the ground is molten lava, and move around the living room without touching it.

Makes my wife mad, for some reason.


----------



## marques

If we are talking about self-defence, strictly, we need a range of tools (for different force levels). And sometimes one should not do more than 'grab' which doesn't imply going to the ground, forcibly. (Or it was not our choice, as you mentioned.) Grappling AS a place in self-defence. As well as striking.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> There's some great ways to train on the ground - or more appropriately, fight on the ground while getting up. And let's be honest here - how many of you actually practice getting up as fast as humanly possible? I'm talking the ground has just caught fire getting up. And how often do you do it? Because you should.





drop bear said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1778522622413809
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty deep huh.



See I told you that post was deep. The concepts just keep coming round.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Each use? Implies more than one, nifty.
> 
> As one aiki-bunny (term coined for us by a karate school next door to my old instructor's place, three... no four dojos ago now) to another, I've a question. I'm sure you didn't haul off and go into a jab-cross-hook-uppercut-leg-kick combination, but are you certain you didn't have some aspect of atemi in the thing you did when you needed to use it? I know it's possible to just reach out and get someone and toss them/lock them up with a quickstep, but usually we make it much, much easier with one of the little touch-taps. It's what I do, anyway.


Two significant ones, unless you count fights with my brother growing up.

In the first (no Aikido at that point), I was grabbed from behind unaware and pulled off something close to seionage (I really need to go back and try to figure out if that's the right technique - I recognize it in the NGA curriculum), so never really had to reach out in that one. In the other, I never had to actually take them down, just get them off me (getting too close and grabbing to transition from the "monkey dance" to a fight). I'd say what I did drew on my grappling, though I can't really point to a technique. In NGA, we train to use atemi inside many of the techniques (I actually have a section of the curriculum where I expect students to make that their focus for a while), so there was a striking element to "release the grip and move them away" that happened.

There were other encounters I could count in, but they were limited attacks - bullies trying to do stuff they shouldn't do. In the cases where they were trying to pick me up or move me, my grappling training let me keep control of my connection to the ground (in other words, they couldn't pick me up) in all but one case, and I remember getting out of that one, too, but no how. In the cases where they were bullying someone else and I stepped in, I used basic grappling principles to move them away from their intended victim (I was a VERY skinny kid, so just yanking them off wouldn't have been effective on these guys) - just weight-shifting and controlling their center, basically.


----------



## JP3

It is interesting how little energy it really takes, if one is of a mind to only use a little.  Put in the proper place, in the proper direction.

The problem is getting amped up and going Mongo on people.  It's sort of difficult to stay loose, relaxed and ... well ... bored enough to really let the aiki do it's thing. Even though I know it will, if I just let it. Such is the path.

A journey, not a destination and all that.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> It is interesting how little energy it really takes, if one is of a mind to only use a little.  Put in the proper place, in the proper direction.
> 
> The problem is getting amped up and going Mongo on people.  It's sort of difficult to stay loose, relaxed and ... well ... bored enough to really let the aiki do it's thing. Even though I know it will, if I just let it. Such is the path.
> 
> A journey, not a destination and all that.



Which is why i subscribe to achieving positional dominance instead.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Which is why i subscribe to achieving positional dominance instead.


Methinks that the word dominance if the principal operative word, eh?

We probably do a lot of the same stuff, except for punching people. I don't want to do that anymore as I don't think I could afford the time off of work with the way my lady spends... ahh... with the way my budget works.  The difference is that I feel sort of bad about accidentally doing  what it is that you are intentionally striving to achieve.  Sort of Luke Skywalker ninnyism against Darth Vader coolness.  *shrug*


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Methinks that the word dominance if the principal operative word, eh?
> 
> We probably do a lot of the same stuff, except for punching people. I don't want to do that anymore as I don't think I could afford the time off of work with the way my lady spends... ahh... with the way my budget works.  The difference is that I feel sort of bad about accidentally doing  what it is that you are intentionally striving to achieve.  Sort of Luke Skywalker ninnyism against Darth Vader coolness.  *shrug*



Not really if it is aki.  Aki takes a threat and turns it against the user.

You punch I catch it and use that momentum to throw.

Positional dominance removes the threat first.

So i under hook.  You can't punch

They are not mutually exclusive by the way.  More of a percentage thing


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really if it is aki.  Aki takes a threat and turns it against the user.
> 
> You punch I catch it and use that momentum to throw.
> 
> Positional dominance removes the threat first.
> 
> So i under hook.  You can't punch
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive by the way.  More of a percentage thing


It all comes down to how people interpret the principle of "aiki", I think. My view is that not all aiki must be circular, or soft, or forgiving. It's possible to work within the principle of aiki and still hit people, jam, and slam. Kind of your point, I think. So long as I'm taking the physical energy of the attack and using it to generate the response (rather than pulling or pushing), it's still "aiki" to me. I'll hit less than you, probably, but that's more a difference in style.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It all comes down to how people interpret the principle of "aiki", I think. My view is that not all aiki must be circular, or soft, or forgiving. It's possible to work within the principle of aiki and still hit people, jam, and slam. Kind of your point, I think. So long as I'm taking the physical energy of the attack and using it to generate the response (rather than pulling or pushing), it's still "aiki" to me. I'll hit less than you, probably, but that's more a difference in style.



Grip fighting which is what Judo,wrestling, grapplers all do to generate aki. Wouldn't be aki though?

It just forces you either create energy or be ground into the deck.

So lets use this element first. If you cant escape the position it just increases. It is not aki just pressure.





You can of course defend that pressure. But doing so creates aki.





Aikido used against punching will still go through that positional pressure phase.


----------



## stonewall1350

JP3 said:


> Pontificating.
> 
> I think that was the word.  I've not noted it being used as often in one short set of words before, so it was jarring, but I think you did use it correctly... but perhaps unintentionally.
> 
> To "pontificate" = express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic; or (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mas.
> 
> It didn't sound like you were in church, so.... I can see why he said that he didn't think that word means what You think it means.



Perhaps I meant contemplate or ponder. Be glad I didn't say fornicate. I appreciate the grammar check. And to be fair to me, this is a common misuse of the word "to think." In fact I would go so far as to say it has a specific meaning in the misuse..."to think deeply about over a long period of time." Which could be ponder or contemplate. But not fornicate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stonewall1350

Buka said:


> The ground. Sometimes it's made to sound like a plane in another dimension. "It's not the place to be in a real fight, Other people will kick you, No good against multiples, It's harder to get away."
> 
> It's just the ground for God sakes. It's been there, in contact with us, almost every minute of our lives. The place not to be in a real fight is on an escalator, or the edge of a building, or in car. The ground is just fine.
> 
> We used to train the ground in a lot of ways. Being surrounded by people who were going to kick or stomp (big difference) or jump on. You have to train using your arms to turn yourself (your feet) towards all directions, you have to use and train various umbrella' tehniques to shield your head. You have to practice quick, violent rolls towards surrounding legs. And you have to do that carefully to avoid injuries while training - you'll hyper-extend their knees and hyperextend/crush ankles if you go wild.
> 
> There's some great ways to train on the ground - or more appropriately, fight on the ground while getting up. And let's be honest here - how many of you actually practice getting up as fast as humanly possible? I'm talking the ground has just caught fire getting up. And how often do you do it? Because you should.
> 
> In any dojo I ever taught - getting up from any exercise, or two man set, or while sparring (after setting defensive/offensive guard - then deciding to get up) or stretching (other than really long splits) is done as if the ground just caught fire. I can't actually envision any other way off getting up off the ground in a dojo. Same way you get up in a fight, when you do get up,_ really_ f'n fast. I think you're nuts if you don't practice that.



A friend that I am in class with has what you might call a "playful killer instinct." In a rolling session if you are weak for a second (say getting up slow after a stalemate or escape with no tap), he jumps you. No rest. I like it. Forces me to get up correctly every time. And it is something I notice not everyone does. Getting up while creating space. Fast.

As a concealed carry...this is something that concerns me. I know many of my brethren would have no clue what to do. In fact, I frequently will play a mind game on myself. I consider if I break bad...how would I jump someone who I suspect may be carrying. My frequent thought is...how best do I knock them down. Look at the history of infantry combat. Knights, samurai, and so on. The best way to crack the can was to knock them down first. With a sword or a trip. And I think that should be considered for self defense as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JP3

stonewall1350 said:


> Perhaps I meant contemplate or ponder. Be glad I didn't say fornicate. I appreciate the grammar check. And to be fair to me, this is a common misuse of the word "to think." In fact I would go so far as to say it has a specific meaning in the misuse..."to think deeply about over a long period of time." Which could be ponder or contemplate. But not fornicate




Not a grammar check, a vocabulary check. There I go, doing it again. Gerry's a bad influence.

If you want to read something funny, go back and read the O/P word-substituting "fornicate" for "pontificate."  Subtly changes the image of the writing, you could say...

"to think," is cogitate.  Here's Webster's:

verb - formalhumorous - 
verb: cogitate; 3rd person present: cogitates; past tense: cogitated; past participle: cogitated; gerund or present participle: cogitating

Definition:  To think deeply about something; meditate or reflect.
To think deeply about something; meditate or reflect.

   I like the description, "Get up like the ground's on fire." That captures the way to change levels precisely. I still agree that to be on the ground against multiples is to court defeat, and defeat is a matter of level of the opponent's dislike for you or their bad intentions towards you. Personally, I'd trust neither.


----------



## UrsaMater

Don't go to ground if you have a choice, You probably are going to focus your attention on your attackers so all that glass you find yourself rolling in could be problematic (The more stress you're dealing with the less info you take in.) It limits your vision, it anchors you to one point making it easier to surround you and eliminates the possibility of shepherding everyone into a more manageable line. We get a lot of marines with a bjj background and the smart ones stay on their feet (one guy managed to hip throw two people before we could get hands on him, oh and this is a psych ward) but the ones that go into that guard? Never ends in their favor. I mean it never ends in any of the assaultive guys favor, but its just easier to deal with.
 Thoughts?


----------



## JP3

If you've only got the one opponent, and you're not fighting n broken glass or a lava flow, and your groundwork skill is significantly better than your opponent's, then the ground isn't a bad place to be.  You can wear someone out until they're so tired they can hardly move sometimes with little effort.

But, the above situations needs to be that way, not a dangerous environment and you've got to be quite a bit better than they.


----------



## Buka

UrsaMater said:


> Don't go to ground if you have a choice, You probably are going to focus your attention on your attackers so all that glass you find yourself rolling in could be problematic (The more stress you're dealing with the less info you take in.) It limits your vision, it anchors you to one point making it easier to surround you and eliminates the possibility of shepherding everyone into a more manageable line. We get a lot of marines with a bjj background and the smart ones stay on their feet (one guy managed to hip throw two people before we could get hands on him, oh and this is a psych ward) but the ones that go into that guard? Never ends in their favor. I mean it never ends in any of the assaultive guys favor, but its just easier to deal with.
> Thoughts?



Welcome to MartialTalk, bro.


----------



## Paul_D

JP3 said:


> and your groundwork skill is significantly better than your opponent's, then the ground isn't a bad place to be.


But of course you won't know the answer to that until you're on the gorund, by which time it's too late.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> But of course you won't know the answer to that until you're on the gorund, by which time it's too late.


For some of us the statistical odds are heavily in our favor.

Also it's only "too late" to change our minds about being on the ground if we are on the bottom - which isn't where we want to be anyway. If I end up on the ground underneath my opponent in a fight, it's probably because they were good enough to take me down against my will. If I were to take an attacker down in a street fight, my first move is to top of knee mount, which allows me freedom to quickly disengage if I need to.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


> For some of us the statistical odds are heavily in our favor.
> 
> Also it's only "too late" to change our minds about being on the ground if we are on the bottom


So his mates or bystanders won't kick you in the head or stab you if you are on top?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Grip fighting which is what Judo,wrestling, grapplers all do to generate aki. Wouldn't be aki though?
> 
> It just forces you either create energy or be ground into the deck.
> 
> So lets use this element first. If you cant escape the position it just increases. It is not aki just pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can of course defend that pressure. But doing so creates aki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido used against punching will still go through that positional pressure phase.


I'm not sure how you're defining "aiki", DB. There's nothing in that wrestling clip I'd consider "aiki". Nothing wrong with it, and you would probably not see much aiki from me if I'm working against a skilled wrestler (they'd likely be good at preventing it) unless they are angry and over-committing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> So his mates or bystanders won't kick you in the head or stab you if you are on top?



I think everybody already agreed that deliberately choosing to go to the ground in a multi-attacker situation was a bad idea. I was responding to your comment that you won't know whether you have better ground skills than your opponent until you have committed to being on the ground. I think the statistics are in my favor on that bit.
I specified my preference for knee ride because if my opponent does turn out to have allies I hadn't previously spotted, being on top of knee ride allows me to see them coming, disengage, and retreat. I teach knee ride as a preferred position for that very reason.
If I'm on top of knee ride, being kicked in the head isn't a huge concern. It's relatively easy to see coming and deal with. Getting stabbed is a risk - but if you are being assaulted by multiple attackers with knives then you better have been working on your sprinting because it's a bad, bad situation whether you are on your feet or not. Dealing with multiple attackers is difficult and dangerous. Dealing with an attacker who has a knife is difficult and dangerous. Dealing with both at once? Nike-jutsu all the way.


----------



## hoshin1600

I really hate the retoric of 97% of fights go to the ground. The common usage is a marketing ploy. The truth is more like 97% of people don't know how to fight and trip over their own feet or slip and end up on their butts because they were just flailing their arms around.  Falling due to your own inabilities is far different then going to the ground with some knowledge of ground work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

hoshin1600 said:


> I really hate the retoric of 97% of fights go to the ground. The common usage is a marketing ploy. The truth is more like 97% of people don't know how to fight and trip over their own feet or slip and end up on their butts because they were just flailing their arms around.  Falling due to your own inabilities is far different then going to the ground with some knowledge of ground work.


Actually I think the original statistic came from Gracie marketing materials that were quoting an LAPD study on fights involving police officers where, duh, most of the confrontations went to the ground because the officers were taking suspects down in order to subdue and handcuff them. Not exactly a representative study of civilian violence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Actually I think the original statistic came from Gracie marketing materials that were quoting an LAPD study on fights involving police officers where, duh, most of the confrontations went to the ground because the officers were taking suspects down in order to subdue and handcuff them. Not exactly a representative study of civilian violence.


I hadn't heard a reasonable origin for that stat before, Tony. That stat does, in fact, make sense in that context.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how you're defining "aiki", DB. There's nothing in that wrestling clip I'd consider "aiki". Nothing wrong with it, and you would probably not see much aiki from me if I'm working against a skilled wrestler (they'd likely be good at preventing it) unless they are angry and over-committing.



My impression of Aki specifically in that instance is like in tennis where you get the guy running from one end of the court to the other untill he can't keep up. 

His defence is creating the force to apply the technique. 

You can see in that clip the guys just starting to float off their feet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My impression of Aki specifically in that instance is like in tennis where you get the guy running from one end of the court to the other untill he can't keep up.
> 
> His defence is creating the force to apply the technique.
> 
> You can see in that clip the guys just starting to float off their feet.


Ah! Okay, I can work with that definition. It's not my definition, but I've never found two people who agree entirely on a single definition for it.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> If you've only got the one opponent, and you're not fighting n broken glass or a lava flow, and your groundwork skill is significantly better than your opponent's, then the ground isn't a bad place to be.  You can wear someone out until they're so tired they can hardly move sometimes with little effort.
> 
> But, the above situations needs to be that way, not a dangerous environment and you've got to be quite a bit better than they.


Or if you're the one with friends.


----------



## drop bear

I think people have this idea of fighting multiples is like.  "I am going to hit this guy and knock him out then break that guys knee.  And then work every one else into a straight line so i can deal with them. "

And normally it really isn't. It is more like you throw a punch and then eat a hundred punches from all directions.

The point of all this is.  If you are fighting a guy and you are worried about his friends. Then you need to finish that guy quickly.

So sometimes taking a guy down and punching him in ground and pound is a viable tactic.  Especially if you haven't dropped him stand up.

You just need a little time and space gap to do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think people have this idea of fighting multiples is like.  "I am going to hit this guy and knock him out then break that guys knee.  And then work every one else into a straight line so i can deal with them. "
> 
> And normally it really isn't. It is more like you throw a punch and then eat a hundred punches from all directions.
> 
> The point of all this is.  If you are fighting a guy and you are worried about his friends. Then you need to finish that guy quickly.
> 
> So sometimes taking a guy down and punching him in ground and pound is a viable tactic.  Especially if you haven't dropped him stand up.
> 
> You just need a little time and space gap to do it.


I'd argue that taking him down hard is a better tactic in that situation, as it will take most folks out of the fight for a time (at minimum). Something folks who do ground-n-pound are actually quite good at.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> Or if you're the one with friends.


Touche'.... but that puts you in the category of "bad guy," right?

Well, unless you're a cop or a military servicemenber in action.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Touche'.... but that puts you in the category of "bad guy," right?
> 
> Well, unless you're a cop or a military servicemenber in action.


Not necessarily. Someone might be dumb enough to jump you while you're with friends. I've stumbled across enough videos to know it's not exactly rare.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Touche'.... but that puts you in the category of "bad guy," right?
> 
> Well, unless you're a cop or a military servicemenber in action.



If someone tries to fight my friend. Then I will fight them I am not sure how that makes me bad.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If someone tries to fight my friend. Then I will fight them I am not sure how that makes me bad.


If someone tries to fight your friend and you are not helping your friend to fight back, you will be a bad guy.

If you are a bad guy, the whole earth will filled with "good guys", what a nice world that you are living in.


----------



## JP3

OK, first Gerry....



gpseymour said:


> Not necessarily. Someone might be dumb enough to jump you while you're with friends. I've stumbled across enough videos to know it's not exactly rare.



And then Drop...



drop bear said:


> If someone tries to fight my friend. Then I will fight them I am not sure how that makes me bad.



C'mon you guys... no Marquis of Queensbury rules here?

Marquess of Queensberry Rules - Wikipedia

One on One, Mano e Mano, "That Dude challenged my Honor," or "That guy just grabbed my wife's ***," and now Let's take this outside?

Keep in mind, one guy attacks one other guy, and the attacked reacts in self-defense and as long as he's not over the top, he's got that defense. One guy attacks another guy, and that guy and his friends jump on him and make him a puddle, that's felony assault. On the Group.

Working security is a gray area. Don't mark people up and it's usually OK, as the cops aren't forced to "see" anything.

Note:  I did not mean to sit there and eat popcorn while your boy is getting brained with a bottle, that in itself is uncouth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> OK, first Gerry....
> 
> 
> 
> And then Drop...
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon you guys... no Marquis of Queensbury rules here?
> 
> Marquess of Queensberry Rules - Wikipedia
> 
> One on One, Mano e Mano, "That Dude challenged my Honor," or "That guy just grabbed my wife's ***," and now Let's take this outside?
> 
> Keep in mind, one guy attacks one other guy, and the attacked reacts in self-defense and as long as he's not over the top, he's got that defense. One guy attacks another guy, and that guy and his friends jump on him and make him a puddle, that's felony assault. On the Group.
> 
> Working security is a gray area. Don't mark people up and it's usually OK, as the cops aren't forced to "see" anything.
> 
> Note:  I did not mean to sit there and eat popcorn while your boy is getting brained with a bottle, that in itself is uncouth.


Doesn't have to be "make him into a puddle." The original point was about the risk of going to the ground being mitigated if you're the one with friends. Friends can keep others from interfering. Friends can help you restrain someone. No, in no way will I stand back and let a friend duke it out if someone attacks them. Too many bad things can happen. I'll find the first opportunity to get in and remove the attacker from the equation, unless my friend gets it under control first.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> OK, first Gerry....
> 
> 
> 
> And then Drop...
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon you guys... no Marquis of Queensbury rules here?
> 
> Marquess of Queensberry Rules - Wikipedia
> 
> One on One, Mano e Mano, "That Dude challenged my Honor," or "That guy just grabbed my wife's ***," and now Let's take this outside?
> 
> Keep in mind, one guy attacks one other guy, and the attacked reacts in self-defense and as long as he's not over the top, he's got that defense. One guy attacks another guy, and that guy and his friends jump on him and make him a puddle, that's felony assault. On the Group.
> 
> Working security is a gray area. Don't mark people up and it's usually OK, as the cops aren't forced to "see" anything.
> 
> Note:  I did not mean to sit there and eat popcorn while your boy is getting brained with a bottle, that in itself is uncouth.



But then i might miss out on a fight.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> But then i might miss out on a fight.



Again, Touche'.

Gerry, I have the impression that Drop would reduce the guy who attacks his mate to a puddle. Probably albeit untentionally and most likely faster than most people would realize there IS a fight even taking place.  You went all serious on me. Of course you get in there and try to break things up, separate people, or substitute in if your friend has no skillset. But, sometimes people think that, "Hey, if the other guy swings at my friend we get to beat him down. It's his fault for starting it."  And, it is a bit muddier than that. Of course assist your friends. Of course you do not get to engage in liquefying a bad guy, with numbers, lifting the level of violence, or using force multipliers like weapons if they don't have one. All I was trying to state.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Again, Touche'.
> 
> Gerry, I have the impression that Drop would reduce the guy who attacks his mate to a puddle. Probably albeit untentionally and most likely faster than most people would realize there IS a fight even taking place.  You went all serious on me. Of course you get in there and try to break things up, separate people, or substitute in if your friend has no skillset. But, sometimes people think that, "Hey, if the other guy swings at my friend we get to beat him down. It's his fault for starting it."  And, it is a bit muddier than that. Of course assist your friends. Of course you do not get to engage in liquefying a bad guy, with numbers, lifting the level of violence, or using force multipliers like weapons if they don't have one. All I was trying to state.


Agreed. 

Mind you, I never said I wouldn't reduce the guy to a puddle - just that it needn't be so. It probably depends how much I hurt that day. The more I hurt, the faster I have to end it.


----------



## UrsaMater

drop bear said:


> I think people have this idea of fighting multiples is like.  "I am going to hit this guy and knock him out then break that guys knee.  And then work every one else into a straight line so i can deal with them. "
> 
> And normally it really isn't. It is more like you throw a punch and then eat a hundred punches from all directions.
> 
> The point of all this is.  If you are fighting a guy and you are worried about his friends. Then you need to finish that guy quickly.
> 
> So sometimes taking a guy down and punching him in ground and pound is a viable tactic.  Especially if you haven't dropped him stand up.
> 
> You just need a little time and space gap to do it.



     Thanks for the greeting guys, I like this place, I should sign on more often.
So if you're referring to my post what I mean is that, ideally, you wouldn't allow a group to surround you in the first place. You know, the same principle of maintaining distance from getting hit on a larger scale. I'm not saying that you're going to be able to kill 9 guys if you avoid going to ground, I'm saying you have BETTER CHANCE of avoiding prison rape (just an example) if you move around on your feet actively and shepherd them during the escalation (which you may or may not get, every encounter is different) so they don't all have their hands on you at once, so you can force one body to occlude another for a bit while you buy time for something better (Like getting on the other side of a locked door or pulling a weapon, or making extravagant promises.) Going to ground is a one on one affair and its going to take too long  for what you suggest and CHANCES are it won't go your way.
      Btw Ive got a group of like 3 people in mind for this particular situation not 6 (so boned if its 6.) Eye gouging, nut kicking and strikes to the brain stem are what the doctor calls for in this situation. And also keep in mind this whole post for me is a game of WOULD YOU RATHER. And I'd rather make like Jack Dempsey than Royce Gracie. And this is coming from a guy that likes to wrestle, I hug people routinely, I keep them safe, in nice padded leather restraints. But against multiples I'm not leaving my feet. Oh and wear long sleeves, scratches are common and anybody can scratch you (or bleed on you) if you wrestle with them, or "ground and pound" them and there are LOTS of people out there with HIV and Hep C. Just my 2 cents. Fighting is a lot more gross than people let on.


----------



## Skullpunch

stonewall1350 said:


> Does your class take into account the self defense side of grappling?



I'm a judo guy so no, our class is mostly sport oriented.

I've done bjj before at a couple of different locations and the self-defense aspect of it is hit or miss, one class had a self-defense specific day per week and the other was pure sport.

That said, the idea that "if you're on the ground you're dead so grappling isn't that good for self-defense" is 100% pure larping.  Even a pure sport bjj and/or judo guy is going to be light-years ahead of 99% (conservatively) of other martial arts practitioners at staying off the ground, getting off the ground should he find himself there, avoiding the clinch, escaping the clinch should he find himself there, etc.  If you don't know how to grapple you're dead if you find yourself in those situations, and you most likely will if you don't know how to grapple because then you won't know how to avoid it.

Grappling dictates where the fight goes, this is common sense.  Dictating where the fight goes is useful for self defense, this is also common sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Skullpunch said:


> I'm a judo guy so no, our class is mostly sport oriented.
> 
> I've done bjj before at a couple of different locations and the self-defense aspect of it is hit or miss, one class had a self-defense specific day per week and the other was pure sport.
> 
> That said, the idea that "if you're on the ground you're dead so grappling isn't that good for self-defense" is 100% pure larping.  Even a pure sport bjj and/or judo guy is going to be light-years ahead of 99% (conservatively) of other martial arts practitioners at staying off the ground, getting off the ground should he find himself there, avoiding the clinch, escaping the clinch should he find himself there, etc.  If you don't know how to grapple you're dead if you find yourself in those situations, and you most likely will if you don't know how to grapple because then you won't know how to avoid it.
> 
> Grappling dictates where the fight goes, this is common sense.  Dictating where the fight goes is useful for self defense, this is also common sense.


I'd argue that any well-trained martial artist can control where the fight goes, when facing an untrained (or poorly trained) attacker. Those of us who do grappling (which includes both standing and ground work) are in another group, where we're specifically trained to control that aspect, so we have an advantage in keeping on our feet. Those who train for sport (and those who "compete" within their school, to a lesser extent) will be the most able to resist being taken to the ground by someone who has skill at taking people to the ground.


----------



## drop bear

Actually a guy from class jujitsued the hell out of a guy breaking up a fight at his work between a whole bunch of drunk employees.

Haven't got the whole story on it yet.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Actually a guy from class jujitsued the hell out of a guy breaking up a fight at his work between a whole bunch of drunk employees.
> 
> Haven't got the whole story on it yet.


Anecdotal evidence... and because I'm inclined to agree with you anyway, it is credible.  I will allow it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Anecdotal evidence... and because I'm inclined to agree with you anyway, it is credible.  I will allow it.



aparently video exists. whether we can get it and post it is another matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> aparently video exists. whether we can get it and post it is another matter.


So, anecdotal evidence of non-anecdotal evidence?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, anecdotal evidence of non-anecdotal evidence?



Yeah pretty much.


----------



## FriedRice

stonewall1350 said:


> And while I am well versed in BJJ/Judo, I want to add more in the punch defense and so on. So what do you pontificate about in this area as it relates to self defense?



Striking skills are good, but you already have enough vs. most untrained people.  Hip throw into the cement, with you dropping your knee on the face while grabbing the arm for a standing arm lock...popping the elbow and maybe wrist also.  Stand up and stomp to the head or soccer kick if you want to take it further (but risk going to prison and/or sued). We drill this often. 1.5 to 2 seconds. Then move to the next guy (b/c BJJ dudes never have friends around).


----------



## drop bear

saw this on facebook. It kind off applies to half the threads on here. But I will shove it in this one.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1175110059205510
			




Basic grappling and basic striking wins fights.
wins them in the dojo.
wins them in competition.
wins them in the street.

And there is no suprise why there is that common element.


----------



## drop bear

double post.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> saw this on facebook. It kind off applies to half the threads on here. But I will shove it in this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1175110059205510
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic grappling and basic striking wins fights.
> wins them in the dojo.
> wins them in competition.
> wins them in the street.
> 
> And there is no suprise why there is that common element.



That was awesome, I really enjoyed that. 

But the one at the two minute mark that went on for a while - I'm so glad that second officer wasn't my partner. That boy needs some serious DT training. Teats on a bull, right there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> double post.


Do all the kangaroos look like they're doing P90X?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Do all the kangaroos look like they're doing P90X?



the roid kangaroo look is pretty common.

I am surprised they dont all wear stringlets and get neck tattoos.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> That was awesome, I really enjoyed that.
> 
> But the one at the two minute mark that went on for a while - I'm so glad that second officer wasn't my partner. That boy needs some serious DT training. Teats on a bull, right there.



When I did DT training that was pretty much the only thing I taught them.

If I grab them then you grab them. People muck around with bloody stupid signals and stuff to initiate a clamp. It is pretty simple. If we are fighting that is the signal.


----------



## Langenschwert

"Alles fechten kommt von Ringen" (all fencing comes from wrestling) HS. 3227a, circa 1389, Germany. If those whose primary mode of combat was armed and usually on horseback considered grappling to be the foundation of their art, then it's good enough for anyone. Like anything else, there's a time and place for it. It's never a bad idea to learn to strike well either. A seasoned wrestler/judoka/etc who boxes well is a fearsome opponent, to be sure. The scariest guys I know are mostly grapplers. 

When weapons come out, and you can't deploy your own weapon or (preferably) use Nike-fu, being a good standup grappler is pretty much your only hope.


----------



## FriedRice

stonewall1350 said:


> This is a question that comes through our gym from time to time, and it is also something I have been pontificating about as well. I know that I watch a lot of videos of street fights, self defense, concealed carry, and so on. And I know that the self defense classes I listen in on frequently discourage grappling. "You are on the ground and you are dead."



The main problem with BJJ only, is that the BJJer's face, has never been tested regularly at eating punches. Therefore, unless you've fought a lot, you may not know how you would react after getting punched hard there, and repeatedly. Many people who train Muay Thai or whatever, for years, may also not know neither because they often quit when there's too much sparring (light to med) and especially when the sparring raises in power levels. Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although they always claim that they have all of the bases covered better than anyone else.


----------



## Langenschwert

FriedRice said:


> The main problem with BJJ only, is that the BJJer's face, has never been tested regularly at eating punches. Therefore, unless you've fought a lot, you may not know how you would react after getting punched hard there, and repeatedly. Many people who train Muay Thai or whatever, for years, may also not know neither because they often quit when there's too much sparring (light to med) and especially when the sparring raises in power levels. Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although they always claim that they have all of the bases covered better than anyone else.



Most people don't like to get punched in the face. I don't mind. The foundation of our modern combatives curriculum is bareknuckle style boxing so we can have good movement, body awareness, and inoculation to a good jab to the snot box. We've had our share of bloody noses, but it's handy to know if you bleed easily. We have one guy we call "Spigot" because his nose bleeds so easily. Now he won't freak out seeing his own blood if he eats a good one. We also do the basics of grappling, both standing and on the ground. Knife defence is essentially high-stakes standup grappling. I supplement that part with both Judo and medieval wrestling.


----------



## Steve

Langenschwert said:


> Most people don't like to get punched in the face. I don't mind. The foundation of our modern combatives curriculum is bareknuckle style boxing so we can have good movement, body awareness, and inoculation to a good jab to the snot box. We've had our share of bloody noses, but it's handy to know if you bleed easily. We have one guy we call "Spigot" because his nose bleeds so easily. Now he won't freak out seeing his own blood if he eats a good one. We also do the basics of grappling, both standing and on the ground. Knife defence is essentially high-stakes standup grappling. I supplement that part with both Judo and medieval wrestling.


Spigot is a good nickname.  We have guys with nicknames like "Earmuff" and "Nutshot."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The main problem with BJJ only, is that the BJJer's face, has never been tested regularly at eating punches. Therefore, unless you've fought a lot, you may not know how you would react after getting punched hard there, and repeatedly. Many people who train Muay Thai or whatever, for years, may also not know neither because they often quit when there's too much sparring (light to med) and especially when the sparring raises in power levels. Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although they always claim that they have all of the bases covered better than anyone else.


Always?


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Always?



"Always", would imply an all or nothing statement which would only take ONE exception to disprove such.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> "Always", would imply an all or nothing statement which would only take ONE exception to disprove such.


Agreed, hence my question about this post (bolded the point in question): 



FriedRice said:


> The main problem with BJJ only, is that the BJJer's face, has never been tested regularly at eating punches. Therefore, unless you've fought a lot, you may not know how you would react after getting punched hard there, and repeatedly. Many people who train Muay Thai or whatever, for years, may also not know neither because they often quit when there's too much sparring (light to med) and especially when the sparring raises in power levels. Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although *they always claim* that they have all of the bases covered better than anyone else.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, hence my question about this post (bolded the point in question):



Didn't know that I was under oath or some joint. The internet is some serious biznit. Ok, I'll help you out. Change it to:

Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although *they often claim* that they have many to all of the bases covered better than anyone else....wait, most anyone else, but not too much while more than somewhat anyone else.


----------



## Steve

FriedRice said:


> Didn't know that I was under oath or some joint. The internet is some serious biznit. Ok, I'll help you out. Change it to:
> 
> Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although *they often claim* that they have many to all of the bases covered better than anyone else....wait, most anyone else, but not too much while more than somewhat anyone else.


Often?

Just kidding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Didn't know that I was under oath or some joint. The internet is some serious biznit. Ok, I'll help you out. Change it to:
> 
> Self Defense people are usually the weakest in this dept., although *they often claim* that they have many to all of the bases covered better than anyone else....wait, most anyone else, but not too much while more than somewhat anyone else.


You can take this whichever way you wish, but your statement about "always" was actually my point. You made the point for me. If you wish to mock it, that's up to you.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> You can take this whichever way you wish, but your statement about "always" was actually my point. You made the point for me. If you wish to mock it, that's up to you.



Didn't I correct it for you though? You're welcome.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Didn't I correct it for you though? You're welcome.


You really don't get it, do you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

FriedRice said:


> The main problem with BJJ *only*, is that the BJJer's face, has never been tested regularly at eating punches.


All "sport" have weakness. A

- boxer doesn't know how to block a kick.
- CMA guy doesn't know how to play the ground game.
- BJJ guy doesn't know how to hit and run.
- ...

"Only" is the problem.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All "sport" have weakness. A
> 
> - boxer doesn't know how to block a kick.
> - CMA guy doesn't know how to play the ground game.
> - BJJ guy doesn't know how to hit and run.
> - ...
> 
> "Only" is the problem.


All martial arts styles have a weakness.  All martial artists have a weakness.  Not just sport.  There's a counter to every technique, and a counter to every counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> All martial arts styles have a weakness.  All martial artists have a weakness.  Not just sport.  There's a counter to every technique, and a counter to every counter.


I'll even go so far as to say the fewer full weaknesses a style has (covering more bases) the weaker it is likely to be in a larger area. So, NGA has strikes and grappling. Assuming similar training levels (and effectiveness of technique), someone who only studies strikes (in our case, closest would be Shotokan Karatedo) or grappling (Judo is a good comparison) will be better than us in their area. We aren't as "only " as those guys are, so we cover more bases (in general), but that means we spread ourselves thinner.


----------



## FriedRice

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All "sport" have weakness. A
> 
> - boxer doesn't know how to block a kick.
> - CMA guy doesn't know how to play the ground game.
> - BJJ guy doesn't know how to hit and run.
> - ...
> 
> "Only" is the problem.



All sports, except MMA, has weaknesses when it comes to hand to hand combat, IMO.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> You really don't get it, do you?



Yes but maybe not yes.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> All sports, except MMA, has weaknesses when it comes to hand to hand combat, IMO.



Really?  Am I reading that right?  MMA has no weaknesses?  

Point.  MMA = Mixed Martial Arts, meaning it is a mix of martial arts.  MMA is not a "thing" in and of itself.

I'll mix Tai Chi and... random choice here still in genre... maybe Wing Chun.  I've just created a flavor of MMA, and it's got weaknesses, and those weaknesses are the underlying arts. I'll steal Wang's assertion that CMA doesn't do well on the ground. OK, there you go, a MMA has a wekness.  Whiz-bang.

Literally everything, everybody and every single style has a weakness or some weaknesses. To assert otherwise is to show lack of understanding. To learn and gain in knowledge is to gain in understanding of the weaknesses in yourself, and train to cover them up to the extent possible.

For example, based on what I know (Sorry about this man) My man Gerry has admitted to having bad knees. It isn't going to happen, but if I was out and I got the impression that he had done something foul and malevolent to my hot ladyship and we had to go, I'd attempt to be up and on him and working against those knees.  I feel confident that said weakness has been the point of thought and training on his part, so he's probably got quite a few workarounds in his personal system.  Weakness, attempted to be trained over/around.

For DropBear, I'd engage him at a distance, perhaps with a game of chess.  For Steve, it'd be a sacrifice throw to go to the ground, then roll around tickling him into submission. For Wang, it'd be the "If do right, no can defense" crane kick from Karate Kid, because he's sure to start laughing so hard that I could actually make it work. Just like on TV.

For some guys who do MMA, I try to find out what their strength is... or what they Think their strength is, then take it away and wait to see what comes next. Usually, it ain't much, since they really did not spend enough time finding out what it is that they are trying to do.  They've got a couple punch combos, a couple low kicks, a leg pic or shoot, and a couple go to moves ont he ground and a decent mount for ground and pound... and that is their complete catalog.  Almost everyone on this board can deal with that guy, if they can deal witht he conditioning problem.

Everyone, everything,  every style has a weakness. Repeated for emphasis. To think otherwise is delusional.



Steve said:


> All martial arts styles have a weakness.  All martial artists have a weakness.  Not just sport.  There's a counter to every technique, and a counter to every counter.



Yes.  Really good martial artists work against each other in a game akin to rapid 3-dimehnsional chess, and whoever doesn't know the next move in the game usually ends up disadvantaged and losing.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> All sports, except MMA, has weaknesses when it comes to hand to hand combat, IMO.


What areas of MMA training typically cover multiple opponents?


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> Really?  Am I reading that right?  MMA has no weaknesses?



Correct.



> For some guys who do MMA, I try to find out what their strength is... or what they Think their strength is, then take it away and wait to see what comes next. Usually, it ain't much, since they really did not spend enough time finding out what it is that they are trying to do.  They've got a couple punch combos, a couple low kicks, a leg pic or shoot, and a couple go to moves ont he ground and a decent mount for ground and pound... and that is their complete catalog.  Almost everyone on this board can deal with that guy, if they can deal witht he conditioning problem.



  I like how you condensed all of MMA into just "a couple of punch combos, couple of kicks, and couple of ground moves..."   so that's like 6 moves required to make a living as a UFC fighter... oh wait, plus some conditioning work.

Well if this is true, then you or whoever you're talking about, can make millions for  just 1 fight  vs. Conor McGregor.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> What areas of MMA training typically cover multiple opponents?



This one:


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> This one:


That's not training, that's an actual contest.  It does not tell me what they have done, with in training specifically to deal with multiple opponents.

So, what do you do, in training, in terms of concepts and principals, that is specifically geared towards multiple opponents.


And that is before we address the fact that the term hand to hand combat encompasses the use of close range and improvised weaponry.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you condensed all of MMA into just "a couple of punch combos, couple of kicks, and couple of ground moves..."   so that's like 6 moves required to make a living as a UFC fighter... oh wait, plus some conditioning work.
> 
> Well if this is true, then you or whoever you're talking about, can make millions for  just 1 fight  vs. Conor McGregor.


You entirely missed the "for some guys" in his statement. I'm guessing on purpose, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> That's not training, that's an actual contest.  It does not tell me what they have done, with in training specifically to deal with multiple opponents.
> 
> So, what do you do, in training, in terms of concepts and principals, that is specifically geared towards multiple opponents.



It's actually a much more realistic application of fighting multiple opponents than what you train if you can't see its results being presented here in this video.

Just from my experience with no training vs. multiple opponents (although I have fought in gang rumbles before in the street when I was young).....and my first time sparring at this one, very good Krav Maga gym.....in a 1 vs 2 and then 1 vs 3  group....it took me like 10 seconds to figure out that I should line them up with my footwork and keep the weakest one in front to block the stronger(s). I was lighting them up 1v2. 1v3, I got hit a lot more. It was about 50% power, but I had to drop one guy because he went hard. Just using Boxing and footwork with a few teeps here and there. These were Level 2-5 in that school I think. I was seeing a lot of fear in their eyes, except that one that I dropped...he was a savage. The main instructor is also a legit Muay Thai fighter.



> And that is before we address the fact that the term hand to hand combat encompasses the use of close range and improvised weaponry.



So you're the only one who knows how to pick up a chair, bottle, lamp, pool stick, etc. to stab or smash into someone's head? Also, would my 9mm with 20 rounds of hollow points, that I carry around like it's an extra limb, be considered an improvised weapon?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> It's actually a much more realistic application of fighting multiple opponents than what you train if you can't see its results being presented here in this video.
> 
> Just from my experience with no training vs. multiple opponents (although I have fought in gang rumbles before in the street when I was young).....and my first time sparring at this one, very good Krav Maga gym.....in a 1 vs 2 and then 1 vs 3  group....it took me like 10 seconds to figure out that I should line them up with my footwork and keep the weakest one in front to block the stronger(s). I was lighting them up 1v2. 1v3, I got hit a lot more. It was about 50% power, but I had to drop one guy because he went hard. Just using Boxing and footwork with a few teeps here and there. These were Level 2-5 in that school I think. I was seeing a lot of fear in their eyes, except that one that I dropped...he was a savage. The main instructor is also a legit Muay Thai fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're the only one who knows how to pick up a chair, bottle, lamp, pool stick, etc. to stab or smash into someone's head? Also, would my 9mm with 20 rounds of hollow points, that I carry around like it's an extra limb, be considered an improvised weapon?


Nothing "hand to hand" about firearms, and you know it.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> So you're the only one who knows how to pick up a chair, bottle, lamp, pool stick, etc. to stab or smash into someone's head?


Whether I am or aren't is not relevant to the point I am making,  You stated that MMA had no weaknesses when it came to hand to hand combat.   As the term hand to hand combat encompasses close range weapons such as knives, sticks, batons and improvised weapons, then in order for MMA to have no weaknesses as you claim, it must have training specific to this area of hand to hand combat.  My question is simply, what are they?



FriedRice said:


> Also, would my 9mm with 20 rounds of hollow points, that I carry around like it's an extra limb, be considered an improvised weapon?


No.  Firearms are considered long range weapons.  Close range weapons are things like knives, batons, sticks etc.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> Whether I am or aren't is not relevant to the point I am making,  You stated that MMA had no weaknesses when it came to hand to hand combat.   As the term hand to hand combat encompasses close range weapons such as knives, sticks, batons and improvised weapons, then in order for MMA to have no weaknesses as you claim, it must have training specific to this area of hand to hand combat.  My question is simply, what are they?
> 
> 
> No.  Firearms are considered long range weapons.  Close range weapons are things like knives, batons, sticks etc.



Oh I forgot that I was under oath again. Change that to, MMA has no weaknesses when it comes to combat using one's natural limbs and body part against others using only their limbs and body parts. Although if someone's arm broke clean off, it's perfectly legal to use that as a melee weapon.


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Nothing "hand to hand" about firearms, and you know it.



The gun's in my hand.


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> Oh I forgot that I was under oath again. Change that to, MMA has no weaknesses when it comes to combat using one's natural limbs and body part against others using only their limbs and body parts. Although if someone's arm broke clean off, it's perfectly legal to use that as a melee weapon.


I was merely seeking further information based on the statement you made, as I can't really quz on statements you haven't made. 

If you used the wrong term fine, just say so.  It's not a problem


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The gun's in my hand.


Not the same thing, and you know it.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Grappling definitely has strong points for self defense purpose.

I personally love grappling arts but would never use my grappling knowledge to purposely roll around on the street with an assailant.   

Instead of rolling I would use my grappling skills to maintain standing position or use it in order to get back up to my feet or to a one knee position (OKP) asap.

There's multiple holds and submissions that you can safely apply from knee on belly, knee on chest, knee on a face down opponent or from the OKP that would allow you to control an opponent with out resorting to just pummeling them. Those positions would allow you to break or KO someone and easily engage another assailant if it turned in to a multiple opponent scenario. 

Those options can be very beneficial when it comes down to the legal system. 



Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Grappling definitely has strong points for self defense purpose.
> 
> I personally love grappling arts but would never use my grappling knowledge to purposely roll around on the street with an assailant.
> 
> Instead of rolling I would use my grappling skills to maintain standing position or use it in order to get back up to my feet or to a one knee position (OKP) asap.
> 
> There's multiple holds and submissions that you can safely apply from knee on belly, knee on chest, knee on a face down opponent or from the OKP that would allow you to control an opponent with out resorting to just pummeling them. Those positions would allow you to break or KO someone and easily engage another assailant if it turned in to a multiple opponent scenario.
> 
> Those options can be very beneficial when it comes down to the legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


By my definition, grappling isn't just the ground-based work. All of Judo, for instance, falls under grappling. Throws and hard takedowns are my preferred techniques for defensive use.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> By my definition, grappling isn't just the ground-based work. All of Judo, for instance, falls under grappling. Throws and hard takedowns are my preferred techniques for defensive use.


Oh I agree I was just leaving the offensive portion out of it. 

Strike or lock to off balance to gain the opportunity to throw. Then throw so you can then gain the opportunity to break or set up a dominate position to smash.  That's pretty much my personal fighting mentality. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> By my definition, grappling isn't just the ground-based work. All of Judo, for instance, falls under grappling. Throws and hard takedowns are my preferred techniques for defensive use.


Oh there was a kerfufflw about this a while back.  Can't remember the detail but it was some ado about defining grappling.  

I'm with you, by the way.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> Oh there was a kerfufflw about this a while back.  Can't remember the detail but it was some ado about defining grappling.
> 
> I'm with you, by the way.


Found it:
Self Defence or Murder .. a fine line.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Oh there was a kerfufflw about this a while back.  Can't remember the detail but it was some ado about defining grappling.



I don't recall details of the kerfluffle, but it's one of those things that probably shouldn't be all that difficult to define. 
How about " if you're grabbing them, you're grappling" for an example. Simple. Clear.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't recall details of the kerfluffle, but it's one of those things that probably shouldn't be all that difficult to define.
> How about " if you're grabbing them, you're grappling" for an example. Simple. Clear.


pretty typical of this place.   Sometimes, some people care more about who says something than what is said.  I agree with you,  grappling is a pretty straightforward word.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> pretty typical of this place.   Sometimes, some people care more about who says something than what is said.  I agree with you,  grappling is a pretty straightforward word.


Yes, starts with a g, end with a g and like all the best pies.. have apple in the middle.. is how I like to fight.. though just before I sense an opponent to tap out.. I like to pause awhile with sweat dripping every where and query with them.. I will say, Yes! this is all well and good.. and but how can we be sure it is really grappling we are doing? I so adore those little metaphysical moments and the insight into ancient cultural mores they invariably bring.. I often wish there were more of that in my daily life


----------



## FriedRice

gpseymour said:


> Not the same thing, and you know it.



What if the guns in my hand and I only shoot the other guy in his hands?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Found it:
> Self Defence or Murder .. a fine line.


Your definition of grappling in that thread matches mine pretty closely. I'll pick just one nit (and it's a very small nit) - getting up from the ground is only grappling if the other guy is trying to hold you down there or you use him to get up. If he's not stopping you at that moment (picking a gap to quickly get up), or if you manage to punch him as he leans in to grab, that's not grappling. Mind you, those are fairly odd isolations, and I'd expect most getting up to involve some grappling, if only in getting the other guy off you or off balance long enough to get up.

So, let's call it a 99% agreement just so I don't have to agree completely. Can't have that.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Your definition of grappling in that thread matches mine pretty closely. I'll pick just one nit (and it's a very small nit) - getting up from the ground is only grappling if the other guy is trying to hold you down there or you use him to get up. If he's not stopping you at that moment (picking a gap to quickly get up), or if you manage to punch him as he leans in to grab, that's not grappling. Mind you, those are fairly odd isolations, and I'd expect most getting up to involve some grappling, if only in getting the other guy off you or off balance long enough to get up.
> 
> So, let's call it a 99% agreement just so I don't have to agree completely. Can't have that.


Now that we have that sorted out, can you explain the grappling rules in advanced dungeons and dragons?


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> Now that we have that sorted out, can you explain the grappling rules in advanced dungeons and dragons?


And for the record, in AD&D, strength does matter, but only for damage. The Attacker's Dexterity score is used as the base (1% for each point of Dex), plus bonuses for clothing (up to 30% if your opponent has plate mail on... lots to grab, I guess).  Minuses for speed.   The defender goes through a similar exercise, but everything is halved if he/she is prone... so, yeah.  Advantage if the fight goes to the ground. 

General note:  Multiple opponents:  It is possible for as many opponents as will physically be able to attack a single adversary to engage in pummeling, grappling or overbearing attack modes.  HOWEVER, attack order must first be determined. 

There's more... but I think I've made myself clear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> What if the guns in my hand and I only shoot the other guy in his hands?


If you shoot through your hand into his, I'll go with it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Now that we have that sorted out, can you explain the grappling rules in advanced dungeons and dragons?


Unfortunately not. When I played AD&D, they hadn't gotten to defining it that deeply. I seem to recall there being a set of tables for unarmed combat, but no guidance to distinguish between striking and grappling, nor for standing or grounded.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Now that we have that sorted out, can you explain the grappling rules in advanced dungeons and dragons?



Yes. They use their Chi and knock you out without touching you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If you shoot through your hand into his, I'll go with it.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Unfortunately not. When I played AD&D, they hadn't gotten to defining it that deeply. I seem to recall there being a set of tables for unarmed combat, but no guidance to distinguish between striking and grappling, nor for standing or grounded.


Not true.  According to my Dungeon Masters Guide (written by Gary Gygax and published by TSR games in 1979) there were three possible forms of unarmed combat: pummeling (which is striking with fists), grappling, and overbearing (otherwise known as "being Australian"  (Lookin' at you, Drop Bear))

Ground fighting was the state of being "prone" which effectively halved all of the defenders percentages.  I can post a picture of the two pages of nonsensical instructions, lf you're interested.  I actually pulled the book off the shelf out of curiosity.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. They use their Chi and knock you out without touching you.


Possibly the Monk.  At 10th level, they get a "mind blast" attack (same as the Mind Flayer's attack), which sounds pretty cool.  At 13th level, they get the dreaded 'quivering palm.'


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Possibly the Monk.  At 10th level, they get a "mind blast" attack (same as the Mind Flayer's attack), which sounds pretty cool.  At 13th level, they get the dreaded 'quivering palm.'



Any class could be psionic...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not true.  According to my Dungeon Masters Guide (written by Gary Gygax and published by TSR games in 1979) there were three possible forms of unarmed combat: pummeling (which is striking with fists), grappling, and overbearing (otherwise known as "being Australian"  (Lookin' at you, Drop Bear))
> 
> Ground fighting was the state of being "prone" which effectively halved all of the defenders percentages.  I can post a picture of the two pages of nonsensical instructions, lf you're interested.  I actually pulled the book off the shelf out of curiosity.


Huh. I don't remember any of that being in there.


----------



## kuniggety

What a bunch of nerds.

I love it.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> You entirely missed the "for some guys" in his statement. I'm guessing on purpose, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.


I noted that too. But, it did allow him to get to toss his schtick again, so whatever.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> What if the guns in my hand and I only shoot the other guy in his hands?


Hand to Hand combat.... 

Hmm...

What if you've got a gun, he's got a gun, and you shoot the gun out of the other guy's hands?  Wouldn't that be more correct?  I could, of course, point out that your continuing to debate this with them is sort of... hilarious? Ludicrous? But, I sense that you are a last word guy, right?


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Huh. I don't remember any of that being in there.


Gerry, remember that first there was D&D, then Advanced D&D (AD&D), then AD&D itself went through editions, which amounted to substantive rules changes, expansions and complexity increasing of rules, then back the other way of the continuum to more simplicity and so forth.  I heard just last month that they had sometime recently released another edition. I admit, your stuff above made me curious. Would you believe they are up to 5th Ed. AD&D now?

Editions of Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia

Oh, and Fried Rice has Quivering Palm technique down. So did JCVD in Bloodsport, remember.


----------



## FriedRice

JP3 said:


> Hand to Hand combat....
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> What if you've got a gun, he's got a gun, and you shoot the gun out of the other guy's hands?  Wouldn't that be more correct?  I could, of course, point out that your continuing to debate this with them is sort of... hilarious? Ludicrous? But, I sense that you are a last word guy, right?



You just won that title.


----------



## Isaiah90

stonewall1350 said:


> This is a question that comes through our gym from time to time, and it is also something I have been pontificating about as well. I know that I watch a lot of videos of street fights, self defense, concealed carry, and so on. And I know that the self defense classes I listen in on frequently discourage grappling. "You are on the ground and you are dead."
> 
> Well. I get that. But it isn't always your choice. So it makes me wonder. Does your class take into account the self defense side of grappling? Mine does not, but I am thinking about learning more. Especially because I'm a concealed carrier, I want every available option before the gun. And while I am well versed in BJJ/Judo, I want to add more in the punch defense and so on. So what do you pontificate about in this area as it relates to self defense?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



When you end up on the ground, my method is to end the conflict period or recover quickly back to a standing position. Reach for a weapon if you have one or resort to foul tactics to create some distance, end conflict, or to control your attacker.


----------



## now disabled

Isaiah90 said:


> When you end up on the ground, my method is to end the conflict period or recover quickly back to a standing position. Reach for a weapon if you have one or resort to foul tactics to create some distance, end conflict, or to control your attacker.



I do understand what you mean by foul tactics , however there are no foul tactics in a self defense situation. The rule book goes out the window 

creating space yeah I get that however your getting into a martial arts context now, to me in your area of teaching stick to more basic concepts and terminology ie get away escape etc etc 

I know I am maybe nit picking but ... using MA buzz words can lead to other things as guys on here who are grapplers and are skilled artists think of those things and may call you out on your concept which may be different to yours in self defense 

not having a go at all just well you know


----------



## drop bear

Isaiah90 said:


> When you end up on the ground, my method is to end the conflict period or recover quickly back to a standing position. Reach for a weapon if you have one or resort to foul tactics to create some distance, end conflict, or to control your attacker.



That is my method when I roll.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Isaiah90 said:


> When you end up on the ground, my method is to end the conflict period or recover quickly back to a standing position. Reach for a weapon if you have one or resort to foul tactics to create some distance, end conflict, or to control your attacker.


That’s a strategy, not a method.


----------



## pdg

I have a question I've been meaning to ask for a while, and seeing as the thread has already wandered a bit I might as well ask it here...


So, almost every time the subject of SD comes up, going to the ground gets mentioned.

Then, it's said that's bad, for amongst other reasons it means rolling around in broken glass (and I've seen fecal matter, vomit, needles and other nasties mentioned too).

Where the hell do these people live???

I can (and have) walk around town with bare feet and the worst that happens is you tread on a little stone.

Around here it's possible to get a job titled "street sweeper" (although nowadays it's probably something more like "public space cleanliness technical engineer"...) It ranges from a guy with a broom to a dedicated vehicle with brushes and a big vacuum cleaner that drives around picking stuff up.

Maybe it would be a good idea to make the suggestion to your local administration, it'll surely improve any SD situation - I can supply photos to assist with lobbying if required?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I have a question I've been meaning to ask for a while, and seeing as the thread has already wandered a bit I might as well ask it here...
> 
> 
> So, almost every time the subject of SD comes up, going to the ground gets mentioned.
> 
> Then, it's said that's bad, for amongst other reasons it means rolling around in broken glass (and I've seen fecal matter, vomit, needles and other nasties mentioned too).
> 
> Where the hell do these people live???
> 
> I can (and have) walk around town with bare feet and the worst that happens is you tread on a little stone.
> 
> Around here it's possible to get a job titled "street sweeper" (although nowadays it's probably something more like "public space cleanliness technical engineer"...) It ranges from a guy with a broom to a dedicated vehicle with brushes and a big vacuum cleaner that drives around picking stuff up.
> 
> Maybe it would be a good idea to make the suggestion to your local administration, it'll surely improve any SD situation - I can supply photos to assist with lobbying if required?




Seriously, most places, outside city business/shopping districts, aren't that clean. All of those are real, but minimal, risks. The ground is a problem, but not made of lava (to borrow @drop bear's comment). Sometimes, going to the ground is actually a good idea. All else being equal, I'd prefer to end up down there. I think the wild exaggeration of the risk of being on the ground comes from early reactions to BJJ's early marketing, which often overstated its ability to defend anything.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Seriously, most places, outside city business/shopping districts, aren't that clean. All of those are real, but minimal, risks. The ground is a problem, but not made of lava (to borrow @drop bear's comment). Sometimes, going to the ground is actually a good idea. All else being equal, I'd prefer to end up down there. I think the wild exaggeration of the risk of being on the ground comes from early reactions to BJJ's early marketing, which often overstated its ability to defend anything.




I'm the opposite I don't want to go to ground ...not because of landing in anything (the last consideration on my mind if a person was going to attack me was hang on dude gotta check there no dog crap first) it because I am not good on the ground esp now the way I am. apart really from the pins and suwari waza (which really I wouldn't count in this scenario) Aikido doesn't have the techs like bjj so I wanna stay on my feet 

Yup before someone states the obvious it a flaw lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I'm the opposite I don't want to go to ground ...not because of landing in anything (the last consideration on my mind if a person was going to attack me was hang on dude gotta check there no dog crap first) it because I am not good on the ground esp now the way I am. apart really from the pins and suwari waza (which really I wouldn't count in this scenario) Aikido doesn't have the techs like bjj so I wanna stay on my feet
> 
> Yup before someone states the obvious it a flaw lol


Oh, I prefer to be on my feet, too, if only because I hate standing back up. I don't like the lack of mobility, additional vulnerability, and having to stand back up (did I mention I don't like having to stand back up?). I've cultivated just enough ground ability to reasonably expect to be able to handle most folks on the ground if I have to, but in most cases standing up is a much better idea. And I won't have to stand back up.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I prefer to be on my feet, too, if only because I hate standing back up. I don't like the lack of mobility, additional vulnerability, and having to stand back up (did I mention I don't like having to stand back up?). I've cultivated just enough ground ability to reasonably expect to be able to handle most folks on the ground if I have to, but in most cases standing up is a much better idea. And I won't have to stand back up.[/QUOTE
> 
> Ah it all revealed lol thats why you really wanted the cane it to help you stand back up lol
> 
> Hey guys kick away his cane and he screwed


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Ah it all revealed lol thats why you really wanted the cane it to help you stand back up lol
> 
> Hey guys kick away his cane and he screwed


And if you do it just before I put weight on it, that's very aiki.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> And if you do it just before I put weight on it, that's very aiki.




umm no it just being a b*tard and kicking poor dudes cane away


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> umm no it just being a b*tard and kicking poor dudes cane away


Well, okay, so not very much in keeping with O-sensei's philosophy. But physically, very low effort and likely to produce a spectacular fall.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Well, okay, so not very much in keeping with O-sensei's philosophy. But physically, very low effort and likely to produce a spectacular fall.



Ah but you know how to do the feather fall so ..........yeah come to think of it ...a Shioda moment ....that def getting added to the demo list


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Ah but you know how to do the feather fall so ..........yeah come to think of it ...a Shioda moment ....that def getting added to the demo list


Like, agree, funny, and dislike.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Like, agree, funny, and dislike.



I shall endeavour to work harder to gain the full set


----------



## axelb

after about 2 years at judo I had the misfortune of an attack.  they tried to pull me to the ground, but that wasn't happening with a Judoka! 

another incident a few years on, I was already on that ground when attacked (skateboarding) and was able to get up and move with 3 attacking me, 2 followed up re-ting l trying to grab and pull me down again, but that wasn't happening. 

the ground is not a nice place to choose to be on, that's why grappling is so important, you are the one on control of who goes to the ground. 
I hear this from other grapple based martial artists; you have more control on whether it goes to the ground or not when you have experience in grappling. 
a common throw strategy on judo is to follow up the throw with landing on them (a classic examples, hip throws to scarf hold).
I would not want to be on the underside of that onto concrete!!! it was painful enough on the mats.


----------



## TMA17

I've been thinking a lot lately about the importance of the grappling arts for SD.  Fights obviously go to the ground.  A good BJJ person wants it to go to the ground, a good striker does not.  Knowing both is clearly the most important approach.  I took a few months off and am about to start training again.  My goal is to learn some grappling, but I'm leaning towards CCW.  It's very  hard to find a CCW place.   

I spoke to an instructor today from PSD and they offer CCW (catch can wrestling).  The little research that I've done has made me really interested in learning this art.  I believe it's probably one of, if not the best, grappling art to know for SD.

Philadelphia JKD Grappling and Catch Wresting

"Much like JKD itself, we take an integrated approach to grappling that consists of sensitivity in flowing with positioning, escapes, take-downs, throws, lockups and ground fighting from Combat Submission Wrestling (CSW), Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Judo, Filipino Dumog, Submission Arts Wrestling (SAW,) Catch Wrestling (Catch-as-catch-can) and WWII combatives."

As much as I love striking, realistically in a fight if you connect with your fist, good chance it's going to break.  Use of elbows or palm strikes/kicks are probably better options.  On the flip side, knowing a good grappling art can really help you avoid that and maintain some control.

The really good  IKMA school also has a good amount of ground work incorporated into their system.  It's based on wrestling and Japanese JJ.  Their view is do what you can to avoid going to the ground and once on the ground they want you up as soon as possible.


----------



## pdg

TMA17 said:


> As much as I love striking, realistically in a fight if you connect with your fist, good chance it's going to break. Use of elbows or palm strikes/kicks are probably better options.



I wouldn't put too much weight in that thing about breaking your hand in a fight if you use your fist - especially if you actually know how and where to punch.

I'd personally say that a palm strike with a bent wrist (palm heel strike) is actually more risky in terms of damaging your wrist bones, which don't like being in that position. It also exposes the soft and vulnerable suicide spot - go upwards with a palm heel toward the chin, miss or slip and tear open your ulnar and radial arteries on their teeth...

Elbow? Sure, but it's a much closer range weapon.

Kicks? Fine, but you'd better be good, accurate and fast if you don't want to telegraph it to hell and back and get your leg caught (and this is coming from someone who considers themselves well on the way to being a 'kicker').


----------



## TMA17

pdg said:


> I wouldn't put too much weight in that thing about breaking your hand in a fight if you use your fist - especially if you actually know how and where to punch.
> 
> I'd personally say that a palm strike with a bent wrist (palm heel strike) is actually more risky in terms of damaging your wrist bones, which don't like being in that position. It also exposes the soft and vulnerable suicide spot - go upwards with a palm heel toward the chin, miss or slip and tear open your ulnar and radial arteries on their teeth...
> 
> Elbow? Sure, but it's a much closer range weapon.
> 
> Kicks? Fine, but you'd better be good, accurate and fast if you don't want to telegraph it to hell and back and get your leg caught (and this is coming from someone who considers themselves well on the way to being a 'kicker').




Good points.  That leaves grappling as the last resort.  In boxing when you tie up, you get pulled apart by a ref, in a street fight it could go to the ground.  The clinch/either from Thai/BJJ/CCW is crucial I would think to be truly competent in any SD scenario.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TMA17 said:


> I've been thinking a lot lately about the importance of the grappling arts for SD.  Fights obviously go to the ground.  A good BJJ person wants it to go to the ground, a good striker does not.  Knowing both is clearly the most important approach.  I took a few months off and am about to start training again.  My goal is to learn some grappling, but I'm leaning towards CCW.  It's very  hard to find a CCW place.
> 
> I spoke to an instructor today from PSD and they offer CCW (catch can wrestling).  The little research that I've done has made me really interested in learning this art.  I believe it's probably one of, if not the best, grappling art to know for SD.
> 
> Philadelphia JKD Grappling and Catch Wresting
> 
> "Much like JKD itself, we take an integrated approach to grappling that consists of sensitivity in flowing with positioning, escapes, take-downs, throws, lockups and ground fighting from Combat Submission Wrestling (CSW), Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Judo, Filipino Dumog, Submission Arts Wrestling (SAW,) Catch Wrestling (Catch-as-catch-can) and WWII combatives."
> 
> As much as I love striking, realistically in a fight if you connect with your fist, good chance it's going to break.  Use of elbows or palm strikes/kicks are probably better options.  On the flip side, knowing a good grappling art can really help you avoid that and maintain some control.
> 
> The really good  IKMA school also has a good amount of ground work incorporated into their system.  It's based on wrestling and Japanese JJ.  Their view is do what you can to avoid going to the ground and once on the ground they want you up as soon as possible.


It's a myth that you are likely to break your fist in a fight. It can happen, but even entirely untrained people throw punches - to hard parts of the body - without breaking anything. And if you strike to softer or more "giving" surfaces (ribs, sternum, etc.), you reduce that risk even further.

Catch wrestling is a good option. But there's no "best" style. A mediocre CCW program won't be as good as an excellent BJJ, Judo, wrestling, etc. program. The style matters, but the training approach matters more.


----------



## TMA17

Great points gpseymour.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's a myth that you are likely to break your fist in a fight. It can happen, but even entirely untrained people throw punches - to hard parts of the body - without breaking anything. And if you strike to softer or more "giving" surfaces (ribs, sternum, etc.), you reduce that risk even further.
> 
> Catch wrestling is a good option. But there's no "best" style. A mediocre CCW program won't be as good as an excellent BJJ, Judo, wrestling, etc. program. The style matters, but the training approach matters more.



And you can break your wrist and fingers throwing palm heels. 

Whenever people make this comparison they use a static solid target so that the palm heel hits at exactly the right spot.

Quite often when you train palm heels on focus mitts you hurt your hand because the other guy holds it wrong. And people still don't get there is risk to your hand there.

It infuriates me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And you can break your wrist and fingers throwing palm heels.
> 
> Whenever people make this comparison they use a static solid target so that the palm heel hits at exactly the right spot.
> 
> Quite often when you train palm heels on focus mitts you hurt your hand because the other guy holds it wrong. And people still don't get there is risk to your hand there.
> 
> It infuriates me.


Yep. Used on a reasonable target, palm heels can be good. Target, unfortunately, can make them bad. To the head, I'm mostly willing to use them. Not so much to the body - punches are safer, IMO, to the body. I could argue both ways on head strikes.


----------

