# Irresponsible Gracie Jiu-Jitsu ad?



## Hanzou (Dec 12, 2014)

Over on another forum a few posters felt this ad was a bit irresponsible. The vid shows a Gjj/Bjj practitioner using their style against multiple opponents in a self defense situation.

HOME - SHAPE CHANGESHAPE CHANGE CREATIVE MEDIA THAT MATTERS. We craft meaningful stories that move people 8230 using video the web and the next generation of grassroots marketing.

Gotta click it quick before the vid cycles over.

Personally I found nothing wrong with the vid, but quite a few people disagree.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 12, 2014)

Only thing I disagree with is the "facts" they mention. Its advertising it does it job.  Im not sure what people would be upset over


----------



## Carol (Dec 12, 2014)

I don't have the ability to watch the video with sound at the moment.  I don't know what was said or promised, but as far as the video part of the ad?  I loved it!  They portrayed a realistic scenario where a person could be vulnerable without getting too heavy on emotion, then showed how the school's training would directly benefit a person in the situation.  

Why do some folks think the ad is irresponsible?  Just curious.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 12, 2014)

Lol, I trained at that school for two years before moving for my job. They're a great school, a lot of the guys compete but when I was at that school there was an emphasis on street application and defense of bjj as opposed to other schools that are more sport centric. 

Generally though I'm not a fan of martial arts advertising tactics especially those that use statistics and fear to attract students but it's quite common. You have to take advertising for what it is, It gets people interested often through snob appeal, everybody's doing it mentality, or fear. 

I didn't see a multiple opponent situation in this video though. I saw a bystander the the attacker and the would be victim, the bystander just watched and only two were involved in the "fight". A lot of people get the misconception that BJJ is only about ground fighting, in many cases though it's about gaining a dominant position. If you're put on the ground you take the dominant there if you're standing you can still gain an advantageous position. An untrained person is often no match for an experienced grappler so multiple untrained opponents are still within the realm of possibility and it doesn't necessarily have to go to the ground for a BJJ practitioner to survive. Weve all seen professional fights that end quickly mma, BJJ comps, boxing, Muay thai, whatever. Sometimes it may be due to luck but other times one fighter just outclasses the other. This is how it would likely be on the street, with inexperienced thugs the experienced competitor can end it quite quickly, although it's never a guarantee. 

The Gracie combatives stuff I've seen, at the school in the video and elsewhere is just as good and nearly the same as combatives from other rbsd systems and is on par with some of the FMA selfs defense stuff I've seen.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 12, 2014)

I don't know about irresponsible but I would like to know the source of those statistics.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 12, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> I didn't see a multiple opponent situation in this video though. I saw a bystander the the attacker and the would be victim, the bystander just watched and only two were involved in the "fight".



Actually, the guy requesting for engine help was an accomplice. He threw a punch at the guy which is why the guy took him down.

As for the "uproar" over the video, people are having issue with Bjj vs multiple attackers, the 90% fights go to the ground statistic, and telling the 911 operator that they're no longer in danger.

I think the other problem is that many people didn't realize those techniques are actually in Bjj.

Personally, I thought it was a good video. :shrugs:


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 12, 2014)

Oh, missed that. Watching from my phone at work, haha. Yeah don't know where that stat came from but its a common held belief in the BJJ community. It's been true in my experience but I've run into a lot of people on the forums that have had just the opposite experience, so at the least it's debatable. I think that generally a guy that is getting out punched in a fight will go for the clinch or back out, the clinch goes to the ground pretty quickly so I don't think the statistic is completely baseless. 

Like you said a lot of guys don't realize what BJJ encompasses and how groups can differ. It's funny back in the day non grapplers would use "the deadly street" argument to deride Gracie JJJ, now the Gracie guys use the same argument to deride some of the more sport focused BJJ players. A big part of my experience with these guys was punch and kick defense from the ground. Hiw not to get punched while mounted or while holding a guy in guard how not to get soccer kicked ect. I see BJJ practical from a worst case scenario standpoint. You may not want to be on your back but it could certsinly happen, if you get comfortable there you can defend and even win the fight. Yes the ground can be bad with multiple opponents but if you unexpectedly find yourself there with mult attackers you'll have the ability to gain a dominant position and escape.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 12, 2014)

Yep, we don't need to pull guard, we actually know how to throw people. 

Here's another vid, but its more tongue in cheek;


----------



## K-man (Dec 12, 2014)

I don't have an issue with the first ad. Advertising is advertising. The second raises more questions. I doubt it would be allowed here.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Yep, we don't need to pull guard, we actually know how to throw people.
> 
> Here's another vid, but its more tongue in cheek;



This is just so wrong in an ad and probably 'real life' but really, really funny!


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 12, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't have an issue with the first ad. Advertising is advertising. The second raises more questions. I doubt it would be allowed here.



Why? Because of the choke?

I think to many Bjj practitioners, a choke is the most gentle and humane way to end a violent physical confrontation.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Over on another forum a few posters felt this ad was a bit irresponsible. The vid shows a Gjj/Bjj practitioner using their style against multiple opponents in a self defense situation.
> 
> HOME - SHAPE CHANGESHAPE CHANGE CREATIVE MEDIA THAT MATTERS. We craft meaningful stories that move people 8230 using video the web and the next generation of grassroots marketing.
> 
> ...


I believe this is Allen Hopkins (Pedro Sauer) or one of his group (Team Hopkins). Have done some training with them good group, good attitudes.


----------



## K-man (Dec 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Why? Because of the choke?
> 
> I think to many Bjj practitioners, a choke is the most gentle and humane way to end a violent physical confrontation.


Personally, I have no issues with the choke but here a choke on the street is virtually regarded as attempted murder. RNCs are right out so I imagine the collar choke wouldn't be far behind so to advertise it that something you are teaching may not go down well with those who don't understand martial arts.

If I'm on the ground, RNC is my preferred finisher.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 12, 2014)

K-man said:


> Personally, I have no issues with the choke but here a choke on the street is virtually regarded as attempted murder. RNCs are right out so I imagine the collar choke wouldn't be far behind so to advertise it that something you are teaching may not go down well with those who don't understand martial arts.
> 
> If I'm on the ground, RNC is my preferred finisher.



Good point, it should be known that applying a choke in the street might be construed as attempted murder in a court case. That being said I think it's no secret BJJ guys train chokes, anyone who has any knowledge of the art knows they train choking people out so I don't really see a need to keep it a secret. The good thing is that a choke can be controlled, a punch perhaps less so, you can KO a guy and he can fall and hit his head and die. Of course, if you choke someone with a medical condition they may react differently than the athletes you train with regularly and it could easily go bad. The current Michael brown case is such an example, a choke was applied to an overweight asthmatic who was placed on his stomach, and he died. A normal healthy guy may not have suffered the same fate.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 12, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> Good point, it should be known that applying a choke in the street might be construed as attempted murder in a court case. That being said I think it's no secret BJJ guys train chokes, anyone who has any knowledge of the art knows they train choking people out so I don't really see a need to keep it a secret. The good thing is that a choke can be controlled, a punch perhaps less so, you can KO a guy and he can fall and hit his head and die. Of course, if you choke someone with a medical condition they may react differently than the athletes you train with regularly and it could easily go bad. The current Michael brown case is such an example, a choke was applied to an overweight asthmatic who was placed on his stomach, and he died. A normal healthy guy may not have suffered the same fate.


Eric Garner not Brown.  Brown was shot.  And Garner died from a heart attack in an ambulance 15 to 20 min after the "Choke" was let go. It also wasnt really a choke but thats what the media is calling it


----------



## geezer (Dec 12, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> This is just so wrong in an ad and probably 'real life' but really, really funny!



Very funny. People just don't have a sense of humor these days. If I were directing the add I'd have her lifting the guy's wallet too.

An ad is just supposed to grab your attention and push your product. Anybody who takes these or any other ads at face value is living in a dream!


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 12, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Eric Garner not Brown Brown was shot.  And Garner died from a heart attack in an ambulance 15 to 20 min after the "Choke" was let go. It also wasnt really a choke but thats what the media is calling it


True I had the wrong name, I hope "Brown Brown" was a typo and not a racial slight, that would be very disrespectful and show a serious lack of character. This would be the first I've heard of the heart attack in the ambulance, the issue has been discussed in depth on other martial arts sites but I havent visited them lately, perhaps its a new development.

I don't really want to bring politics into this, my intention was only to point out that choking out the wrong person could have more impact than you intend.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Only thing I disagree with is the "facts" they mention. Its advertising it does it job.  Im not sure what people would be upset over



you are not suggesting they would need some sort of proof are you?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually, the guy requesting for engine help was an accomplice. He threw a punch at the guy which is why the guy took him down.
> 
> As for the "uproar" over the video, people are having issue with Bjj vs multiple attackers, the 90% fights go to the ground statistic, and telling the 911 operator that they're no longer in danger.
> 
> ...



the 90% thing is from  police statistics somewhere. (i will see if i can find it)

the issue being if you are trying to arrest someone in a fight you generally take them to the ground. So the statistics may not be applicable.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> Good point, it should be known that applying a choke in the street might be construed as attempted murder in a court case. That being said I think it's no secret BJJ guys train chokes, anyone who has any knowledge of the art knows they train choking people out so I don't really see a need to keep it a secret. The good thing is that a choke can be controlled, a punch perhaps less so, you can KO a guy and he can fall and hit his head and die. Of course, if you choke someone with a medical condition they may react differently than the athletes you train with regularly and it could easily go bad. The current Michael brown case is such an example, a choke was applied to an overweight asthmatic who was placed on his stomach, and he died. A normal healthy guy may not have suffered the same fate.



bear in mind judges and lawyers decide that. Not martial artists. I have suffered a few wtf moments in court.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> the 90% thing is from  police statistics somewhere. (i will see if i can find it)
> 
> the issue being if you are trying to arrest someone in a fight you generally take them to the ground. So the statistics may not be applicable.



here we go sort of. There are inserts of the report in this piece.

you could probably chase the rest of it down if you wanted.

Going to the Ground Lessons from Law Enforcement


----------



## jezr74 (Dec 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> here we go sort of. There are inserts of the report in this piece.
> 
> you could probably chase the rest of it down if you wanted.
> 
> Going to the Ground Lessons from Law Enforcement



If I'm reading it right, it's around 60% and the statistics are derived from altercations with officers?

I think the vid is ok, well produced.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Personally, I have no issues with the choke but here a choke on the street is virtually regarded as attempted murder. RNCs are right out so I imagine the collar choke wouldn't be far behind so to advertise it that something you are teaching may not go down well with those who don't understand martial arts.
> 
> If I'm on the ground, RNC is my preferred finisher.



Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).

The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 13, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> True I had the wrong name, I hope "Brown Brown" was a typo and not a racial slight, that would be very disrespectful and show a serious lack of character. This would be the first I've heard of the heart attack in the ambulance, the issue has been discussed in depth on other martial arts sites but I havent visited them lately, perhaps its a new development.
> 
> I don't really want to bring politics into this, my intention was only to point out that choking out the wrong person could have more impact than you intend.


No should have been Brown.  Brown I was starting a new sentence missed the period.  

According to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, an ambulance was immediately called to the scene and Garner was transported to Richmond University Medical Center. He had a heart attack in the vehicle and was pronounced dead approximately one hour later at the hospital.[47]


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> you are not suggesting they would need some sort of proof are you?


No I'm suggesting it's wrong.  It's advertising it's allowed to twist the facts.  It's ok as long as you understand what your looking at.


----------



## K-man (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).
> 
> The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.


I think you might find that strangulation includes both compression of the arteries and compression of the trachea. I'm not 100% sure of Victorian law but certainly it is out for security guys.

A recent article on the subject.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_36/slr36_2/SLRv36n2DouglasFitzgerald.pdf

Attempts to choke or strangle carry up to 25 years jail in NSW but it must be in the course of committing an indictable offence. You may be able to claim self defence but the issue is, you may well be finding yourself in court if you elect to use a choke/strangle on the street.

Even in the US chokes are under scrutiny.

Law makes Choking a Felony - Gracie News


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Eric Garner not Brown Brown was shot.  And Garner died from a heart attack in an ambulance 15 to 20 min after the "Choke" was let go. It also wasnt really a choke but thats what the media is calling it



Actually it really is a choke;







I know cops call it a vascular neck restraint, but that hold does the exact same thing a RNC, Triangle Choke, Cross Collar Choke, or an Anaconda Choke does.

That said, Garner didn't die from the choke, he died from several cops piling on him.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think you might find that strangulation includes both compression of the arteries and compression of the trachea. I'm not 100% sure of Victorian law but certainly it is out for security guys.
> 
> A recent article on the subject.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting article, but it doesn't actually speak to anything I mentioned… it's about the indication of potential future domestic violence indicated by such assaults as strangulation, but not really anything to do with self defence law, or legal usages in security and law enforcement. In addition, page 243 and 244 have the following passages:



> In South Australia and Victoria there is no offence that refers specifically to strangulation or choking.





> In Victoria, two relevant endangerment offences provide that a person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death98 (or serious injury)99 is guilty of an indictable offence.



The key word in the second quote is "lawful excuse"… security officers, properly trained and licences, as well as law enforcement officers can be seen as having lawful excuse in this sense.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually it really is a choke;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand what a Choke is thanks.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand what a Choke is thanks.


----------



## Buka (Dec 13, 2014)

I taught a lot of cops. City police, county sheriff departments and Feds. Mostly Feds the last ten years of my career. I taught cardiovascular restraint holds, mostly RNC and collar chokes, to all the Feds. The key to doing it is obviously to do it properly, but as important - knowing the rules, how they are written and how to write up a training procedure (which then is run by the legal department of your agency) and how to write a report. 

Two things you go by. Your department's Use of Force Policy, and your department's Force Continuum policy. As to the later - law enforcement are legally allowed to "up one" in the continuum. (He picks up a two by four, you draw your weapon) Key to teaching cardiovascular restraints is to teach them as part of deadly force. (first level in the continuum is Officer Presence. Last is Deadly Force) This is a big part of CYA. (cover your ***)As to the holds themselves, you need to spend as much time pointing out the wrong way as you do the right way. An officer has to feel the difference between a blood choke and a "holy ****, you're crushing my throat" 

Time has to be spent on this with every single officer you teach. And it has to be trained with a "struggling" training partner so as to show how the hold can go from perfect - to "his throat is now in danger because your hold shifted in the scramble. And scrambles happen all to often. I've never had any of the DT we use come back to bite any of the officers I trained. Thank God.

Interesting side story - 
In the eighties, The United States had a city Law Enforcement exchange program with Japan. Two Japanese police officers were sent to each state in the continental U.S. They lived with a city cop for one year at their homes and went to work with them every day. Here in Boston only one came, his partner breaking his leg the day before the trip. Shinji (pardon the spelling) lived with my buddy Paul. Paul was in the anti gang unit at the time. A third of that unit trained at my dojo, I also had most of them in the academy when they were cadets.Shinji came to the dojo most days - telling me that back home (I believe it was Yokohama) each police station had a dojo in the basement where local kids trained for free in Judo as part of a community program. I thought that was awesome.So....I used to go along with the gang unit a lot of nights, "to study the use of force as it applies to proper training procedures" but in reality, it was just a lot of fun. I'd usually head out at 9 at night after the dojo was done. I wore a jacket that said "Observer". One night we had been talking about choke holds used in Japanese police actions. (Shinji also taught DT in Japan) later that night turned out to be a zoo, lots of gang wars, robberies and assaults. The boys had their hands full and were really busy. I had pointed out that Shinji wasn't necessarily bound by the same restraints the Boston guys were - if the situation put him in imminent danger. Which it conveniently did. We had screamed up to a rumble in several cars and jumped into the fray making arrests. One of the gang members ran right by Shinji, who clotheslined him and put him to sleep in a standing RNC. Before that night was over he chocked out three different bad guys, all of whom were arrested, none of whom bitched about the chokes. (things were so much easier back then) He did that standing RNC, an arm triangle on the ground and a nifty collar choke on the ground as well. (It was so hard not to break down laughing)Shinji started out as a homesick, shy young guy. By the end of the year he was almost clawing the tarmac at Logan airport to stay. I hope he's doing well.

As to those two ads - I loved them.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 13, 2014)

BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground.  Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones?  That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground.  Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones?  That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.



Really? The LAST thing you would do?

What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you? Are you going to stand there and trade punches with him or try to hit vital spots while he's pulverizing you? What if they take YOU down to the ground? Are you going to try to fight your way back to your feet?

I can think of numerous situations where taking someone to the ground, or learning how to fight on the ground is a very good idea. Is it optimal against multiple armed attackers? Probably not. However, if you find yourself in a situation where you're unarmed, alone, and having to fight off several armed attackers, no martial art is going to be optimal. 

You also messed up a long time ago.


----------



## K-man (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> That's an interesting article, but it doesn't actually speak to anything I mentioned… it's about the indication of potential future domestic violence indicated by such assaults as strangulation, but not really anything to do with self defence law, or legal usages in security and law enforcement. In addition, page 243 and 244 have the following passages:
> 
> The key word in the second quote is "lawful excuse"… security officers, properly trained and licences, as well as law enforcement officers can be seen as having lawful excuse in this sense.


I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I couldn't do a cut and paste so I just quoted the article. The relevant bit was the second page that was pointing out that legally there is no difference between a choke and a strangulation because the definition of strangulation includes both vascular and air choke. 



> _Strangulation, sometimes referred to as choking or garrotting, is defined as the obstruction of blood vessels and/or airflow in the neck leading to asphyxia. _



An additional danger can be damage to the Vagus nerve causing ongoing heart problems.

Then the next point regards 'indictable offence'. 


> _Whosoever:
> by any means attempts to choke suffocate or strangle any person, or
> 
> by any means calculated to choke suffocate or strangle, attempts to render any person insensible unconscious or incapable of resistance,
> ...



Apart from the criminal law element there is civil law. Even if you applied a choke to prevent an indictable offence or in self defence you could still be liable for damages.

'Lawful excuse' is a very vague term. Step slightly to one side slightly and you are outside 'lawful excuse'. That is why the security guys I know have taken it out of their tool bag. Some smart lawyer is going to have them in civil court potentially costing huge money.

Now nothing here has anything to do with sport grappling as that is seen as 'consensual fighting' under Victorian law, so it is perfectly legal to teach it within that context, but there is no way I would be teaching one as potentially legal and one as not.


----------



## Buka (Dec 13, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground.  Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones?  That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.



I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 13, 2014)

Buka said:


> I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
> I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.


And Ill disagree with you LOL


----------



## Steve (Dec 13, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).
> 
> The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.


Can you provide some support for this?   You may be right, but this is exactly the opposite of what I've always been told.  

Strangle is attacking the wind pipe.  Choke restricts blood flow to brain.   Never heard it otherwise.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T (Dec 13, 2014)

To strangle is to choke by compressing of the air way or to interfere with breathing.
To choke is to restrict. On a human it can be blood or air flow.
One can die from being strangled by a choking of the throat. Or one can die by being choked by an arm wrapped around the neck restricting the blood flow to the brain.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2014)

Buka said:


> I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
> I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.



I thought this thread was interesting;

Grappling attacker Using a knife and gun for self defense MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

...from a poster who was concerned about being grappled to the ground by a mugger (according to some report she read, muggers like to take their victims to the ground). She considered buying a knife to deal with a grappler, instead of learning grappling herself.

Seems like in a situation like that, knowing Bjj would be a very good idea.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I thought this thread was interesting;
> 
> Grappling attacker Using a knife and gun for self defense MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
> 
> ...


I've taken alot of robbery reports over the last 15 years I don't know of any where a suspect grappled a victim to the ground.  The closest would be knocking them down. Or hitting them and they fall.  Usually if the suspect is armed they never even touch the victim they order them to hand over the property and they usually do.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 13, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> I've taken alot of robbery reports over the last 15 years I don't know of any where a suspect grappled a victim to the ground.  The closest would be knocking them down. Or hitting them and they fall.  Usually if the suspect is armed they never even touch the victim they order them to hand over the property and they usually do.



Just going by what they posted in that thread Ballen.

Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think you might find that strangulation includes both compression of the arteries and compression of the trachea. I'm not 100% sure of Victorian law but certainly it is out for security guys.
> 
> A recent article on the subject.
> 
> ...



mate of mine did two years. For breaking a guys teeth in a fight. When he wrestled him to the ground. Because he grabbed around the guys neck it became a major component in convicting him.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I couldn't do a cut and paste so I just quoted the article. The relevant bit was the second page that was pointing out that legally there is no difference between a choke and a strangulation because the definition of strangulation includes both vascular and air choke.
> 
> 
> 
> > Strangulation, sometimes referred to as choking5 or garrotting,6 is defined as the obstruction of blood vessels and/or airflow in the neck leading to asphyxia.



Yeah, I got that… in fact, I'd already pointed out the medical definition that stated as such (_"Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]"_)… of course, it's not quite that simple either… for example, it lists "garrotting" as an alternate (comparative) term… although that refers to using some apparatus to achieve the strangulation, which is not necessary for the "strangulation" definition. Additionally, the footnote to the definition of "choking" on that page continues to define "choking" as affecting the airways exclusively (_"Note, *‘choking’ is actually a blockage of the windpipe *by food or other object: see Gael Strack and George McClane, ‘How to Improve your Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases’ (National Family Justice Center Alliance, 1998, updated January 2003 and September 2007)."_)

The part I was focusing on in your comments are where you state that you're not 100% on Victorian law regarding such methods and techniques, but that it was "certainly out" for security guys… however, neither of the articles linked had anything to do with that at all, as they were both focused on domestic abuse (and the NSW Law article pointed out that Victoria's laws are different to NSW's). I'm also not sure that it's "certainly out" for security guys… it's far from the go-to that it might have been previously, but that's not to do with legalities… it's more to do with what looks good on security cameras… which is becoming (has become) a big part of what determines the training these days.



K-man said:


> An additional danger can be damage to the Vagus nerve causing ongoing heart problems.



Yep, true.



K-man said:


> Then the next point regards 'indictable offence'.



Yep, which was a way of demonstrating that the act itself was not, in the strictest definition, the criminal act by itself. Honestly, I find that rather unsettling… but feel that the assault laws can be applied to the act without it necessarily preceding (or intending to precede) another indictable offence.



K-man said:


> Apart from the criminal law element there is civil law. Even if you applied a choke to prevent an indictable offence or in self defence you could still be liable for damages.



Absolutely.



K-man said:


> 'Lawful excuse' is a very vague term. Step slightly to one side slightly and you are outside 'lawful excuse'. That is why the security guys I know have taken it out of their tool bag. Some smart lawyer is going to have them in civil court potentially costing huge money.



Yeah, it is (a vague term)… many such definitions are, mainly to not exclude something unusual, and have someone hide behind "it's not strictly illegal…" The more definitive the terms are, the more is excluded, which can be exploited. Of course, the downside is that the definition can get so vague as to be almost meaningless, leaving it up to the individuals in question to figure out their own application of the term(s).

Again, though, the security guys haven't taken it out due to any legal requirements, it's to prevent the security personnel (and the people they work for) from being open to the very situations you're describing.



K-man said:


> Now nothing here has anything to do with sport grappling as that is seen as 'consensual fighting' under Victorian law, so it is perfectly legal to teach it within that context, but there is no way I would be teaching one as potentially legal and one as not.



I wouldn't say "potentially legal", so much as "potentially legally defensible"… but again, I'm not teaching security guards, I'm teaching in the realms of self defence… which is less focused on how things look on camera (although that does get addressed a relative amount).



Steve said:


> Can you provide some support for this?   You may be right, but this is exactly the opposite of what I've always been told.
> 
> Strangle is attacking the wind pipe.  Choke restricts blood flow to brain.   Never heard it otherwise.



Sure.

Firstly, medical definitions, as they go against the way you've heard it. http://www.janedoe.org/site/assets/docs/Learn_More/DV_Homicide/JDI_MediaGuide_Strangulation.pdf


> Choking
>  Definition: internal obstruction of the airway.
>  Correct: Children can choke on hard candies.
>  Incorrect: The victim was choked by her ex-boyfriend.
> ...



Is choking the same as strangulation 


> Question: Is choking the same as strangulation?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> No. Both choking and strangulation refer to a restriction of air (_asphyxiation_) caused by something other than a disease process, but choking comes from inside the throat and strangulation comes from outside.



As far as usage of terminology within security, my information came firstly from my Chief Instructor, who is government accredited to create and write Security Industry Training Programs (as well as others), and is supported by the following thread on an Australian Security Industry Forum (note: the definitions I'm dealing with, when it comes to security applications, are very much the ones used locally here… in the US it may vary greatly, or not at all, or anywhere in-between, and indeed, may vary from State to State, as it does here. That might account for you understanding a different interpretation):

Australian Security Workers Forum - Choke out

Some relevant quotes are in post #16 (_"The general problem with choke holds or strangulation holds (which are two different techniques - one cutting off the air, one cutting off the blood) is legally defining them as "reasonable force."_"), and post #9 (_"The Vascular Neck Restraint and Shoulder Pin are very effective techniques for dealing with difficult and/or dangerous restraint situations however the Vascular Neck Restraint is generally not recommended as it can easily become a '*Respiratory Neck Restraint' aka 'choke hold' *especially when attempted by someone who has not learnt the technique correctly and has not practiced the technique regularly. It is also seen by bystanders as a choke."_).



Hanzou said:


> I thought this thread was interesting;
> 
> Grappling attacker Using a knife and gun for self defense MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
> 
> ...



Hmm, that's not the way I read Cercei's thread… it was more about how to determine when to apply lethal force, rather than "how do we deal with a grappling attacker". I also didn't read anything that suggested she was thinking of getting a blade herself based on the email she got from a mailing list (the second half of the OP)… or anything that really suggested she was concerned overly about a grappling attacker as opposed to any other. And, honestly, if I was around when she first posted that, I would have pointed out some big errors in the email she got, as there are some real gaps in reality there (not unsurprising in a largely propaganda mail out, honestly).

Really, learning BJJ might have been a good idea, in the hypothetical and unsupported (from anything I've seen) claims of what a mugger would commonly do, but frankly, that would only be one of a number of options that could be considered equally valid and beneficial.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2014)

Regarding going to court. How exactly do you prove the difference between a choke and a strangulation?

arm around the neck could be anything. So of course a victim of it will say he was unable to breath and fearing for his life.

a guy did this to me from a standing head arm triangle. And i don't think you can cut off a persons air from that position.

i really will stress this again. A judge generally knows nothing about being in a fight.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 14, 2014)

Yep. That's really the big issue… the number of cases where the judge or magistrate in question has levelled a sentence or verdict based on a lack on knowledge about violence, martial arts, or similar are sadly numerous. This is the biggest reason such methods are discouraged in many areas (not illegal, but not really something that is preferred…), as it's very much a case of he said, he said… and who has the better lawyer…


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Yep, we don't need to pull guard, we actually know how to throw people.
> 
> Here's another vid, but its more tongue in cheek;



Damn, will be showing that to my Sister.


----------



## K-man (Dec 14, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I got that… in fact, I'd already pointed out the medical definition that stated as such (_"Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]"_)… of course, it's not quite that simple either… for example, it lists "garrotting" as an alternate (comparative) term… although that refers to using some apparatus to achieve the strangulation, which is not necessary for the "strangulation" definition. Additionally, the footnote to the definition of "choking" on that page continues to define "choking" as affecting the airways exclusively (_"Note, *‘choking’ is actually a blockage of the windpipe *by food or other object: see Gael Strack and George McClane, ‘How to Improve your Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases’ (National Family Justice Center Alliance, 1998, updated January 2003 and September 2007)."_)


I think you are trying to read too much into what I posted. The law doesn't care about medical definition. Under the law if you restrict blood flow or air supply it is viewed as strangulation. Now martial artists make what I believe to be a valid differentiation but that doesn't occur under the law. If you use one of these techniques then I would assume the situation would be similar to NSW law.



> *What the police must prove: *
> To convict you of an attempts to choke charge, the police must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:
> 
> You, with the intention of enabling yourself or some other person to commit an indictable offence or assisting any person to commit an indictable offence.
> ...


And as I said, even if you beat the criminal charge you may still face civil action.



Chris Parker said:


> Australian Security Workers Forum - Choke out


I think it's relevant to look at that entire post as it is pointing out the same information I was trying to impart.


> The general problem with choke holds or strangulation holds (which are two different techniques - one cutting off the air, one cutting off the blood) is legally defining them as "reasonable force." This comes down to two main reasons, with a lot of other subsequent problems.
> 
> 1. Authorised, Justified or Excused by Law.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying it's illegal to use these techniques but it may well be more trouble than it's worth. Hence when my friend, who also trains and manages security guards, tells me his guys don't use them any more for the reasons I have given, I believe him.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think you are trying to read too much into what I posted. The law doesn't care about medical definition. Under the law if you restrict blood flow or air supply it is viewed as strangulation. Now martial artists make what I believe to be a valid differentiation but that doesn't occur under the law. If you use one of these techniques then I would assume the situation would be similar to NSW law.



The law is rather vague… and NSW law is a bit different to Victorian here (as noted in your link earlier). And, for the record, I was primarily looking at training terminology (general terms for Vascular Restraint being "strangulation", and Respiratory Restraint being "choke")… the strict legal definitions are another question… honestly, I don't think there's any actual one, looking into this…  



K-man said:


> And as I said, even if you beat the criminal charge you may still face civil action.



Yep, agreed.



K-man said:


> I think it's relevant to look at that entire post as it is pointing out the same information I was trying to impart.
> I'm not saying it's illegal to use these techniques but it may well be more trouble than it's worth. Hence when my friend, who also trains and manages security guards, tells me his guys don't use them any more for the reasons I have given, I believe him.



Cool, then we're agreed on this.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, that's not the way I read Cercei's thread… it was more about how to determine when to apply lethal force, rather than "how do we deal with a grappling attacker". I also didn't read anything that suggested she was thinking of getting a blade herself based on the email she got from a mailing list (the second half of the OP)… or anything that really suggested she was concerned overly about a grappling attacker as opposed to any other. And, honestly, if I was around when she first posted that, I would have pointed out some big errors in the email she got, as there are some real gaps in reality there (not unsurprising in a largely propaganda mail out, honestly).



Well she discusses the issue of when to use lethal force because of the email she is quoting from. The email makes the following claims;

1.Muggers tend to be wrestlers and prefer to grapple their victims to the ground.

2.The best defense against grapplers is the blade, because it's easier to conceal than a gun.

Her entire thread revolved around that premise.



> Really, learning BJJ might have been a good idea, in the hypothetical and unsupported (from anything I've seen) claims of what a mugger would commonly do, but frankly, that would only be one of a number of options that could be considered equally valid and beneficial.



"Might" infers that it may also *not* be a good idea. In what way would a woman learning Bjj for self defense be a bad idea?


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> "Might" infers that it may also *not* be a good idea. In what way would a woman learning Bjj for self defense be a bad idea?



A bad idea? I don't think I said that… I simply said it was one of a number. I'm not turning this into an art vs art debate… honestly, BJJ is one of the biggest suggestions I give for female self defence, for a variety of reasons… but that doesn't mean I think it's the best, most optimum, or anything else. Bluntly, I think what I offer is far superior… but then again, if I didn't, I probably wouldn't teach it.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> 2.The best defense against grapplers is the blade, because it's easier to conceal than a gun.



I guess over here the Knife is the only thing to worry about. It is not unheard of for undesirables to carry credit cards with Stanley blades. Found one once, very nasty and easily concealable.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Just going by what they posted in that thread Ballen.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger.


Im not shooting anyone just responding to what was posted. Id do it there but its like 10 years old.  Most robberies are what we call Strong armed which means the suspected didnt have a weapon.Most of those are snatch and run.  Basically run up grab a purse or phone shove the victim and run.  The other thing we have had alot of is aversion of the knock out game where all of a sudden they punch you in the face to knock you down then go into you pockets take your stuff then run.  Grappling takes time and they want to hit and run


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you?



Someone bigger and stronger than you is going to be a problem to overcome either way. As for striking, the bigger they are, the harder you hit them. 



Hanzou said:


> Are you going to stand there and trade punches with him or try to hit vital spots while he's pulverizing you?



In a self defence situation you would not want to be trading punches and you would want to hit him in his vital spots before he pulverizes you.



Hanzou said:


> What if they take YOU down to the ground? Are you going to try to fight your way back to your feet?



Yes, I would be trying to get to my feet (which I have done before) because on my feet I have mobility, on the ground I do not.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not shooting anyone just responding to what was posted. Id do it there but its like 10 years old.  Most robberies are what we call Strong armed which means the suspected didnt have a weapon.Most of those are snatch and run.  Basically run up grab a purse or phone shove the victim and run.  The other thing we have had alot of is aversion of the knock out game where all of a sudden they punch you in the face to knock you down then go into you pockets take your stuff then run.  Grappling takes time and they want to hit and run



No argument here Ballen. Again, I'm just using the thread as an example of a woman's very real concerns. Concerns that many woman probably have. As men, we don't have to worry that much about some random guy coming up and grabbing us from behind and dragging us to a dark place to assault us. Women do, simply because its more likely to happen to them. So if a woman came to me with that email and was looking for some answers, I wouldn't tell her what you said above.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2014)

So, it sounds like, medically speaking, a choke is caused by an obstruction.  Something in your throat blocking air.

Strangle is external, either blood or air.  Do I have that right?  

Either way, common usage in BJJ is what I described, fwiw.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Someone bigger and stronger than you is going to be a problem to overcome either way. As for striking, the bigger they are, the harder you hit them.



Force against force? Interesting.



> In a self defence situation you would not want to be trading punches and you would want to hit him in his vital spots before he pulverizes you.



And when you hit those "vital spots" and the guy is still pulverizing you, trading punches is exactly what you end up doing. Better to have another option if plan A doesn't work. Wouldn't you agree?



> Yes, I would be trying to get to my feet (which I have done before) because on my feet I have mobility, on the ground I do not.



Actually you won't need to try if you learn how to fight from that range. You control the tempo, the positioning, and the momentum. So instead of having to fight some clown off of you, you simply gain the dominant position and get up, or maintain standing position while dominating him in a downed position. The best way to get off the ground is to control it.

Additionally you do have a lot of mobility on the ground. You just need to learn how to move once you get there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> So, it sounds like, medically speaking, a choke is caused by an obstruction.  Something in your throat blocking air.
> 
> Strangle is external, either blood or air.  Do I have that right?
> 
> ...


Yes legally as well.  If you tell me you were choked by an attacker.  In my report I'd write you were strangled but I know what you Mean when you say you were choked.  Kinda like saying the word robbed.  People tell me all the time their house was robbed.  I know what they mean but you can "rob" a house your house was burglarized not robbed


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you? Are you going to stand there and trade punches with him or try to hit vital spots while he's pulverizing you? What if they take YOU down to the ground? Are you going to try to fight your way back to your feet?




Thats is when you run like hell, poke peoples eyes knee the groin and pull every dirty trick using whatever you get your hands on till you get to your feet and then ( oh ya here it comes) run like hell.

edited:  sorry folks saw the above and thought i was on page 3 then realized I was on page 2


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes legally as well.  If you tell me you were choked by an attacker.  In my report I'd write you were strangled but I know what you Mean when you say you were choked.  Kinda like saying the word robbed.  People tell me all the time their house was robbed.  I know what they mean but you can "rob" a house your house was burglarized not robbed


Makes sense.   If anything, the legal definition is a lot more *elegant {edit:  relevant, not elegant} to a self defense discussion than a medical definition.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> No argument here Ballen. Again, I'm just using the thread as an example of a woman's very real concerns. Concerns that many woman probably have. As men, we don't have to worry that much about some random guy coming up and grabbing us from behind and dragging us to a dark place to assault us. Women do, simply because its more likely to happen to them. So if a woman came to me with that email and was looking for some answers, I wouldn't tell her what you said above.


Honestly the chances that will happen to a woman are also pretty slim.  Most woman are attacked in their homes or vehicles.  The rapist hiding in the dark ally are kinda rare.  Not saying it doesn't happen but if your playing the odds your much more likely to be attacked as a female in your home


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Thats is when you run like hell, poke peoples eyes knee the groin and pull every dirty trick using whatever you get your hands on till you get to your feet and then ( oh ya here it comes) run like hell.
> 
> edited:  sorry folks saw the above and thought i was on page 3 then realized I was on page 2



While I agree that you need to play every dirty trick, those dirty tricks have a much better chance of succeeding when you're in a dominant position. The dominant position also makes it easier for you to disengage and run away.



ballen0351 said:


> Honestly the chances that will happen to a woman are also pretty slim.  Most woman are attacked in their homes or vehicles.  The rapist hiding in the dark ally are kinda rare.  Not saying it doesn't happen but if your playing the odds your much more likely to be attacked as a female in your home



Whether it happens on the cold concrete of an alleyway or in the warmth of their home, or the cramped confines of their car, its the same general principle; Women are far more likely to be grabbed, wrestled down, and assaulted than men.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

Not sure about that either.  Most of the time the attacker has a weapon and uses fear more then wrestling.  I'm not saying woman shouldn't train I think everyone should but the ideas put out in that thread were not really the reality of most attacks


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 14, 2014)

Home or vehicle, parking lot, or dark ally what difference dose it make they are still being attacked and overwhelmed.  Almost every other night there is a report on the television of some woman being attacked in Boston or at one of the numerous colleges nears there. Most of these women are alone in a neighborhood they know at night.  Most have said they just where not aware of anyone following them Perhaps just being aware of surroundings and maybe carrying a can of bear repellant or mace could have helped them  . 
Unfortunately screaming for help seems to have little effect these days so once again running if they reprieve trouble may be the best recourse. 
Personally I could not convict a woman who defend herself from rape  and accidentally killed the perpetrator if it was obvious she was about to be raped or physically maimed


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Force against force? Interesting.



But not what I was getting at.



Hanzou said:


> And when you hit those "vital spots" and the guy is still pulverizing you,



And if you apply a grappling hold and he is still pulverizing you. Same question.



Hanzou said:


> trading punches is exactly what you end up doing.



If you do not have good defense that is what you would end up doing. Striking is like Russian Roulette, you won't know which strike that hits you is going to be the one that finishes you so why not try not to get shot?



Hanzou said:


> Better to have another option if plan A doesn't work. Wouldn't you agree?



Definitely you should but why automatically go to plan B first?



Hanzou said:


> Actually you won't need to try if you learn how to fight from that range. You control the tempo, the positioning, and the momentum. So instead of having to fight some clown off of you, you simply gain the dominant position and get up, or maintain standing position while dominating him in a downed position. The best way to get off the ground is to control it.



That basically describes the same thing but in a different way. If you can do that in less than 30 seconds then good but the longer it takes the higher the chance you might get stomped on or lose your chance to get away. If you are in a sporting contest you can afford to take your time a bit



Hanzou said:


> Additionally you do have a lot of mobility on the ground. You just need to learn how to move once you get there.



really? I find it easier to get away when I can run rather than trying to crawl or scoot along the ground.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> .  I know what they mean but you can "rob" a house your house was burglarized not robbed


May be robbed from?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> May be robbed from?


Yes only people can be robbed.  You can be robbed in your home but your home itself can't be.  People call all the time and say their house was robbed while they were at work.  Like I said I know what they are trying to tell me but the actual crime is a burglary.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> Home or vehicle, parking lot, or dark ally what difference dose it make they are still being attacked and overwhelmed.


Personally if I was attacked I would rather it be in a location I am familiar with so that I would know what might be on hand to use as a weapon or which escape routes were where.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes only people can be robbed.  You can be robbed in your home but your home itself can't be.


Unless your house is a person too. 

http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3263_1.jpg


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Unless your house is a person too.
> 
> http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/3263_1.jpg


Anyone willing to rob that house can keep what they get


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> But not what I was getting at.



You said if the person is bigger and stronger you hit harder. That's force on force. A contest of strength against a bigger and stronger opponent is a fool's errand.



> And if you apply a grappling hold and he is still pulverizing you. Same question.



Please explain how someone can pulverize you from an inferior position. Further, if I have someone in a hold, let's say a guillotine choke from guard, how exactly is he going to pulverize me with his head, neck, hips, and spine completely under my control?




> If you do not have good defense that is what you would end up doing. Striking is like Russian Roulette, you won't know which strike that hits you is going to be the one that finishes you so why not try not to get shot?



No, that's what you end up doing if your strikes aren't doing significant enough damage. Since we're talking about someone bigger and stronger than you, that's a distinct possibility.



> Definitely you should but why automatically go to plan B first?



I never said go to plan B first. I'm saying that you're TKD, and Bjj compliments TKD very well.  Your strikes fail, and you can't get away, take him down. Your strikes do great but not enough to finish him off and he decides to take you down, it's all good. For me, Bjj is plan A, for you, it could be plan B. My point is that the ground isn't a range you want to ignore for superficial reasons.

I have a black belt in karate. You think I'm going to abandon my karate background if I'm fighting for my life? No way. I have both karate and Bjj in the toolbox, and I will use both. They compliment each other, and fill each other's holes quite well.




> That basically describes the same thing but in a different way. If you can do that in less than 30 seconds then good but the longer it takes the higher the chance you might get stomped on or lose your chance to get away. If you are in a sporting contest you can afford to take your time a bit



You'd be surprised how quickly a person can get taken down, controlled, and put to sleep. Yes, all of that can happen in under 30 seconds. It's only prolonged if you're dealing with someone a LOT stronger than you, or an experienced grappler.



> really? I find it easier to get away when I can run rather than trying to crawl or scoot along the ground.



We don't crawl or scoot my friend. There's a reason we call it "rolling".


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You said if the person is bigger and stronger you hit harder. That's force on force. A contest of strength against a bigger and stronger opponent is a fool's errand.



Still not what I am getting at. Where you hit is more important than how hard you hit. If you hit a larger opponent in the same vital spot as a smaller opponent then it requires more force to have the same effect for the larger opponent than it does for the smaller person, all other things being equal, that's just physics. Punch a 50kg jockey  and a 150kg bodybuilder in the temple with the exact same punch and which one do you think will have the greater effect?



Hanzou said:


> Please explain how someone can pulverize you from an inferior position. Further, if I have someone in a hold, let's say a guillotine choke from guard, how exactly is he going to pulverize me with his head, neck, hips, and spine completely under my control?



Please explain where you get the 'inferior position" from? I did not mention it. What if he is out-grappling you? How can someone pulverize you when you are hitting him in his vital spots and defending his strikes?




Hanzou said:


> No, that's what you end up doing if your strikes aren't doing significant enough damage. Since we're talking about someone bigger and stronger than you, that's a distinct possibility.



This reminds me of the video with the security guard trading punches with the thug, which is not an effective way to deal with someone bigger and stronger than you.



Hanzou said:


> I never said go to plan B first. I'm saying that you're TKD, and Bjj compliments TKD very well.  Your strikes fail, and you can't get away, take him down. Your strikes do great but not enough to finish him off and he decides to take you down, it's all good. For me, Bjj is plan A, for you, it could be plan B. My point is that the ground isn't a range you want to ignore for superficial reasons.
> 
> I have a black belt in karate. You think I'm going to abandon my karate background if I'm fighting for my life? No way. I have both karate and Bjj in the toolbox, and I will use both. They compliment each other, and fill each other's holes quite well.



Unless that is an area which you believe you have overwhelming superiority, going to the ground in a self defence situation is far down the list of desirable outcomes. There are ways you get someone on the ground without going down there yourself. No one is ignoring the ground range, it is just not the primary focus of some arts. TKD has more than just striking in it, grappling is a large part, including ground defense.





Hanzou said:


> You'd be surprised how quickly a person can get taken down, controlled, and put to sleep. Yes, all of that can happen in under 30 seconds. It's only prolonged if you're dealing with someone a LOT stronger than you, or an experienced grappler.



Probably not as quick as getting knocked out with the right strike. 



Hanzou said:


> We don't crawl or scoot my friend. There's a reason we call it "rolling".



Can you roll faster than you can run, I know I can't.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Still not what I am getting at. Where you hit is more important than how hard you hit. If you hit a larger opponent in the same vital spot as a smaller opponent then it requires more force to have the same effect for the larger opponent than it does for the smaller person, all other things being equal, that's just physics. Punch a 50kg jockey  and a 150kg bodybuilder in the temple with the exact same punch and which one do you think will have the greater effect?
> 
> Please explain where you get the 'inferior position" from? I did not mention it. What if he is out-grappling you? How can someone pulverize you when you are hitting him in his vital spots and defending his strikes?
> 
> ...


A couple of assumptions being made I'm not sure I agree with.  One is that striking is going to be plan a.   That's a tactical decision and I can envision situations where it may be wiser to control the bad guy than to hit him.  

Second, if you are an untrained grappler, and your opponent is bigger and stronger, you are pretty much ensuring you will be in an inferior position.  Training may not guarantee a superior position, but not training is pretty much guaranteeing an inferior one.

Regarding a choice to go to the ground, you may be right.  But one may not have a choice.

I have a related question for ballen and the other Leo.  How common is date rape, marital rape and other situations like this?   I insisted my daughter take 2 years of bjj.  She didn't really enjoy it, but understood why it was helpful.   Imy thought is that I'm more interested in her being able to control one  stupid teenage boy than a gang of ninja in a dark alley.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## KydeX (Dec 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> I have a related question for ballen and the other Leo.  How common is date rape, marital rape and other situations like this?   I insisted my daughter take 2 years of bjj.  She didn't really enjoy it, but understood why it was helpful.   Imy thought is that I'm more interested in her being able to control one  stupid teenage boy than a gang of ninja in a dark alley.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


This I totally agree with. For rape defense, BJJ must be the ultimate martial art in my mind.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 14, 2014)

> I have a related question for ballen and the other Leo.  How common is date rape, marital rape and other situations like this?   I insisted my daughter take 2 years of bjj.  She didn't really enjoy it, but understood why it was helpful.   Imy thought is that I'm more interested in her being able to control one  stupid teenage boy than a gang of ninja in a dark alley.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


That's the most common date rape out numbers Stanger rape by far.  I don't know actual figures I'm sure they are out there somewhere.  But In my personal experience I'd say for every stranger rape I've dealt with I've felt with 10 where the victim knows the attacker either a date rape or ex boyfriend or ex husband is the most common.  Sadly most of these types the woman wouldn't fight back anyway regardless of training


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Still not what I am getting at. Where you hit is more important than how hard you hit. If you hit a larger opponent in the same vital spot as a smaller opponent then it requires more force to have the same effect for the larger opponent than it does for the smaller person, all other things being equal, that's just physics. Punch a 50kg jockey  and a 150kg bodybuilder in the temple with the exact same punch and which one do you think will have the greater effect?



Thanks for the clarification. You didn't mention any of that the first few times around.

My question to you would be this; Do you think striking someone in "vital spots" is a high percentage method of disabling someone?



> Please explain where you get the 'inferior position" from? I did not mention it. What if he is out-grappling you? How can someone pulverize you when you are hitting him in his vital spots and defending his strikes?



You stated that I'm applying a grappling hold and he's still pulverizing me. If I'm applying an effective grappling hold, then that implies that I'm in a superior position, as indicated in the picture I posted. There's very few situations where I would attempt a hold/lock/choke in an inferior position.

As for someone out-grappling me, that's always a possibility. However, I'd put more money on someone being able to out-strike me, than being able to out grapple me, so for me its my plan A. Your personal mileage may vary.

As to your question, that's easy;

1. You miss./ He has good defense.
2. You don't hit the vital spot straight on.
3. His blows penetrate your defenses.

Again, you're trading blows with a physically superior opponent.



> Unless that is an area which you believe you have overwhelming superiority, going to the ground in a self defence situation is far down the list of desirable outcomes. There are ways you get someone on the ground without going down there yourself. No one is ignoring the ground range, it is just not the primary focus of some arts. TKD has more than just striking in it, grappling is a large part, including ground defense.



You mean ground defense like punching someone in the nuts while they're on top of you, or trying to scratch out their eyes while they have you in the headlock on the ground?

Would you be willing to share some of these ground defenses? I'd be very interested in hearing about them.




> Probably not as quick as getting knocked out with the right strike.



But far more likely.



> Can you roll faster than you can run, I know I can't.



I wasn't comparing it to running, I was comparing it to crawling and scooting.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

KydeX said:


> This I totally agree with. For rape defense, BJJ must be the ultimate martial art in my mind.



Ironically, Guard resembles missionary position.


----------



## KydeX (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Ironically, Guard resembles missionary position.


Exactly my point. So when the assailant thinks he's where he wants to be, he's in for a real surprise.


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Ironically, Guard resembles missionary position.


Not technically ironic, but I do agree.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Ironically, Guard resembles missionary position.



I would take this whole thread on a side track with that statement but I'd get reported to the mods way to many times for what I want to say so I'll only say thats why I don't like playing  (rolling) on the ground with other guys


----------



## Steve (Dec 14, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I would take this whole thread on a side track with that statement but I'd get reported to the mods way to many times for what I want to say so I'll only say thats why I don't like playing  (rolling) on the ground with other guys


I think kman said recently, context matters quite a bit.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Silly question maybe, but why you guys say "from guard"?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Silly question maybe, but why you guys say "from guard"?



Its a position. No different than saying "From Mount" or "From Side Control".

There's also several Guard variations. Hell, seems like a new one comes out every week these days. A friend of mine recently showed me Worm Guard. I guess there's an entire system revolving around it. I'm not even trying that crap.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 14, 2014)

I'm not a big fan of the fear based advertising model, whether it's for martial arts, security systems, politicians, or anything else. That said, I don't see anything particularly unusual or irresponsible about this specific ad.

I've never been able to keep track of the "strangle" vs "choke" definitions, so I just go with "blood choke" or "air choke."

We don't really need to rehash the same old ground vs stand-up debate again in this thread do we?  For what it's worth, I really like the way Bud Malmstrom explained it at a seminar I attended many years ago:

He asked "how many people here have ever seen or been in a real fight?" Just about everybody raised their hands.
"How many of those fights started out with the combatants at long range?"
A bunch of hands went up.
"Better learn to fight at long range then."

"How many of those fights ended up at close range?"
Just about all the hands went up.
"Better learn to fight at close range then."

"How many of those fights ended up on the ground?"
A bunch of hands went up.
"Better learn to fight on the ground then."

(Mind you, this was before the UFC and the popularity of BJJ. Bud's a smart guy.)



Transk53 said:


> Silly question maybe, but why you guys say "from guard"?



It's a specific position on the ground. In ground fighting, positional control is extremely important and each position can be a major area of study in itself.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Its a position. No different than saying "From Mount" or "From Side Control".
> 
> There's also several Guard variations. Hell, seems like a new one comes out every week these days. A friend of mine recently showed me Worm Guard. I guess there's an entire system revolving around it. I'm not even trying that crap.



Worm guard. Sounds delightful


----------



## Danny T (Dec 14, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> ... "how many people here have ever seen or been in a real fight?" Just about everybody raised their hands.
> "How many of those fights started out with the combatants at long range?"
> A bunch of hands went up.
> "Better learn to fight at long range then."
> ...


So much truth here.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 14, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Worm guard. Sounds delightful



You've got plenty of options ... closed guard, open guard, half-guard, deep half-guard, butterfly guard, spider guard, x-guard, half x-guard, z guard, de la Riva guard, reverse de la Riva guard, seated guard, rubber guard, worm guard, donkey guard, octopus guard, pancake guard, etc, etc. Most of them are strictly for sport grappling competition, but there are a good number with actual combative applications.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You've got plenty of options ... closed guard, open guard, half-guard, deep half-guard, butterfly guard, spider guard, x-guard, half x-guard, z guard, de la Riva guard, reverse de la Riva guard, seated guard, rubber guard, worm guard, donkey guard, octopus guard, pancake guard, etc, etc. Most of them are strictly for sport grappling competition, but there are a good number with actual combative applications.



Okay. Some interesting names there. Thanks for that  The Pancake, would that be like flat to the mat?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> We don't really need to rehash the same old ground vs stand-up debate again in this thread do we?



Nah, I was just suggesting to RTKD that a little jiu-jitsu in addition to your existing skills never hurt anybody.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Okay. Some interesting names there. Thanks for that  The Pancake, would that be like flat to the mat?



Pancake Guard:





Should have known that Keenan Cornelius was involved.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Pancake Guard:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thankyou @Hanzou. Completely different from what I imagined it to be. Very interesting, wish I was able to try some BJJ, but will have to try and a tournament/competition one day.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 14, 2014)

Since we were talking about Guard and missionary position;


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Since we were talking about Guard and missionary position;



Can't help but think Colin Farrel and Kate Beckingsale in Total Recall 2009


----------



## Carol (Dec 14, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I would take this whole thread on a side track with that statement but I'd get reported to the mods way to many times for what I want to say so I'll only say thats why I don't like playing  (rolling) on the ground with other guys



What about other students?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Pancake Guard:


And I though Pancake Guard was some kind of attachment for the stove.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Thanks for the clarification. You didn't mention any of that the first few times around.
> 
> My question to you would be this; Do you think striking someone in "vital spots" is a high percentage method of disabling someone?



Depends on the strike.
Depends on the vital spot
Depends on the person.
Depends on the power of the strike.
Depends on the technique of the strike.



Hanzou said:


> You stated that I'm applying a grappling hold and he's still pulverizing me. If I'm applying an effective grappling hold, then that implies that I'm in a superior position, as indicated in the picture I posted. There's very few situations where I would attempt a hold/lock/choke in an inferior position.



The general gist of my comment was that someone Paul_D said basing a self defence art on going to the ground would be the last thing he would do, to which you replied with the question "what if he is bigger and stronger than you?", indicating that you thought going to the ground is the only way to deal with someone bigger and stronger than you. I then pointed out that it is not. I was trying to say that, as it is with striking, if you are grappling some things do not work as well against a bigger, stronger opponent as they do with a smaller, weaker one. Selection of appropriate techniques and strategies is required in both cases.




Hanzou said:


> As to your question, that's easy;
> 
> 1. You miss./ He has good defense.
> 2. You don't hit the vital spot straight on.
> ...



Again, if you're trading blows you're doing it wrong.



Hanzou said:


> You mean ground defense like punching someone in the nuts while they're on top of you, or trying to scratch out their eyes while they have you in the headlock on the ground?



Is that what you think? What is it with grappllers and sport fighters fascination with groin strikes and eye gouges being the only things self defence people can do against them?



Hanzou said:


> Would you be willing to share some of these ground defenses? I'd be very interested in hearing about them.



If I can find some videos then I can give you absolute proof.  Why should I provide you with that when you never have despite numerous requests by me and others to do the same?




Hanzou said:


> But far more likely.



If you say so.



Hanzou said:


> I wasn't comparing it to running, I was comparing it to crawling and scooting.



Actually we were comparing mobility on the ground versus mobility standing up.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Really? The LAST thing you would do?


Yes, the chances of his friends, or even bystanders that think that can get away with a free shot, is too great a risk.  Geoff Thompson recounts in his books cases of guys who were "tearing the other guy a new arsehole" only to be beaten or stabbed by his mates.

So yes, it's the last place I would want to be.

All your other points are completely valid, and I am not arguing with them.  What I am saying is why does BJJ (or in fact any martial art, with the exception Judo, for that  matter) try to advertise itself in terms of it's effectiveness in Self defence, when it is not designed to deal with the realities of civilian violence.  Instead stick to promoting the actual benefits of your art.

BJJ wil get you fit, BJJ tests all it's techniques against trained/resisting opponents, In BJJ if a better way of doing something comes along you adopt it raterhthan yes "yeah thats great but I'm goign to keep doing it the old way becasue that's how some Japanese guy that has been dead for 100 years, and no one has met, did it".  etc etc Promote these things insatead.  You don't see Judo pretending it's great for self defence, it just promotes what it is good for.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 15, 2014)

I don't know about that Paul.  Judo is great for self-defense and I know my judo school taught a self defense class to military and police officers.  Judo doesn't really market itself period but if they did I'm sure self defense would be a big part of it.  I'm not a big fan of BJJ either but it definitely has a place in self defense and can be quite good depending in the situation.  You shouldn't be so quick to blow it off entirely.  Great now you made me defend BJJ the sky is falling


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> The general gist of my comment was that someone Paul_D said basing a self defence art on going to the ground would be the last thing he would do, to which you replied with the question "what if he is bigger and stronger than you?", indicating that you thought going to the ground is the only way to deal with someone bigger and stronger than you. I then pointed out that it is not. I was trying to say that, as it is with striking, if you are grappling some things do not work as well against a bigger, stronger opponent as they do with a smaller, weaker one. Selection of appropriate techniques and strategies is required in both cases.



Actually that wasn't my indication at all. I was giving Paul an example of when utilizing Bjj (or grappling in general) could be appropriate. Going to the ground is certainly not the ONLY thing you could do, but taking someone to the ground is one of the best ways to neutralize their power and many of their natural weapons. Especially if they don't know how to grapple, which is frankly more likely than encountering someone who doesn't know how to hit you with their hands and feet.

I do agree with your latter point. Appropriate selection of techniques and strategies is always required. 




> Again, if you're trading blows you're doing it wrong.



I don't see how you avoid it, unless you somehow manage a knockout blow, or break their limbs with a strike. Good luck with that.



> Is that what you think? What is it with grappllers and sport fighters fascination with groin strikes and eye gouges being the only things self defence people can do against them?



Blame yourselves. That's the standard response people use against grappling, and yes, its very silly. You're not going to be grabbing groins or scratching out eyes in an inferior position, which is exactly what a physically more powerful person will put you in if you don't know how to get out of it.




> If I can find some videos then I can give you absolute proof.  Why should I provide you with that when you never have despite numerous requests by me and others to do the same?



Because a guy doing Bjj (me) isn't nearly as interesting as a TKD practitioner performing ground defenses.



> If you say so.



Oh, I definitely say so. Remember 
this?

That can be applied in a matter of seconds against an opponent trying to tackle you. 



> Actually we were comparing mobility on the ground versus mobility standing up.



Actually no. You stated that you have NO mobility on the ground, and I was forced to correct you. I'm glad you've realized the error of your ways.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 15, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, the chances of his friends, or even bystanders that think that can get away with a free shot, is too great a risk.  Geoff Thompson recounts in his books cases of guys who were "tearing the other guy a new arsehole" only to be beaten or stabbed by his mates.
> 
> So yes, it's the last place I would want to be.
> 
> ...



Well, let's get some misconceptions out of the way first;

1.While Bjj certainly specializes in ground techniques, those techniques are not the only thing a Bjj individual could or would use in a self defense situation. Heck, many Bjj practitioners cross train in wrestling, Judo, Sambo, and striking arts. 

2.Saying the ground is the last place you want to be in a self defense situation is a  valid argument. Completely ignoring ground fighting because of that argument is not.

3.No martial art is optimal against multiple attackers. I don't care what style you take. Further, a Bjj practitioner is not going to pull guard while going against multiple opponents anyway. As I stated in my previous post, if you find yourself in a situation where you're unarmed and you're up against several armed opponents, you messed up a long time ago.

To your question about why martial arts advertise themselves in terms of their effectiveness in self defense; Simple, because they are effective for self defense. Seriously, you can't see the self defense application of the Guard after getting tackled, a side kick to the side of the knee, a hip throw to counter a punch, a standing Waki-gatame to bring someone to their knees, or breakfalling to avoid cracking your head open?

All of it is useful in a self defense situation.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually no. You stated that you have NO mobility on the ground, and I was forced to correct you. I'm glad you've realized the error of your ways.


I was speaking in relative terms, next time I will try to be more explicit.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

Here's another ad I've found about women and Bjj. Please note, it may be NSFW.






Irresponsible?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Here's another ad I've found about women and Bjj. Please note, it may be NSFW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sex sells, everyone knows that, so you buy their product and you turn into a super sexy fighter......yeah right, dream on. Irresponsible yes, sexist yes, stupid yes, misleading yes, distasteful yes. Stupid and pointless as well as demeaning to female martial artists, setting them up as the femme fatale of Hollywood myths.
and no I'm not a jealous female before anyone says that. There's so much wrong with that it's disappointing to see it being put here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Sex sells, everyone knows that, so you buy their product and you turn into a super sexy fighter......yeah right, dream on. Irresponsible yes, sexist yes, stupid yes, misleading yes, distasteful yes. Stupid and pointless as well as demeaning to female martial artists, setting them up as the femme fatale of Hollywood myths.
> and no I'm not a jealous female before anyone says that. There's so much wrong with that it's disappointing to see it being put here.


Im Missing the +REP thing again


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 16, 2014)

Typical advert really. The people whom make these, seem to believe that intimate feminine areas, have a bearing on anything a women does. Rather silly really. Sort of thing you would on a Chris Tarrant show. Deary me.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Sex sells, everyone knows that, so you buy their product and you turn into a super sexy fighter......yeah right, dream on. Irresponsible yes, sexist yes, stupid yes, misleading yes, distasteful yes. Stupid and pointless as well as demeaning to female martial artists, setting them up as the femme fatale of Hollywood myths.
> and no I'm not a jealous female before anyone says that. There's so much wrong with that it's disappointing to see it being put here.



So if it was a guy fighting in his undies against two robbers there wouldn't be a problem?


----------



## KydeX (Dec 16, 2014)

If I ever have a break-in in my house, I'm gonna run downstairs naked. Nobody wants to fight with a naked man


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

KydeX said:


> . Nobody wants to fight with a naked man


Sadly Ive done it alot


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So if it was a guy fighting in his undies against two robbers there wouldn't be a problem?



Of course there would be a problem if presented in the same way. Why should anyone male or female be objectified in this way?


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Of course there would be a problem if presented in the same way. Why should anyone male or female be objectified in this way?



Now see, I don't view it as objectification. I view those Victoria Secret commercials where skinny women are prancing around in lingerie as objectification. A woman in a vulnerable position fighting back against two thieves and kicking both their butts? I think that's pretty cool.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

KydeX said:


> If I ev a break-in in my house, I'm gonna run downstairs naked. Nobody wants to fight with a naked man



Grant Waterman (a UK MMA ref) was in the middle of reffing a fight when a naked man ran into the cage, the fighters stopped, sat down to watch as Grant went to stop the streaker but he suddenly pulled away from the man and let the security catch him. Asked afterwards what had happened he said he'd been about to RNC the guy when he remembered it was being videoed and it really would not have looked good!


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Now see, I don't view it as objectification. I view those Victoria Secret commercials where skinny women are prancing around in lingerie as objectification. A woman in a vulnerable position fighting back against two thieves and kicking both their butts? I think that's pretty cool.


So they need shower scenes and slow motion close ups of her butt to sell a GI?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Now see, I don't view it as objectification. I view those Victoria Secret commercials where skinny women are prancing around in lingerie as objectification. A woman in a vulnerable position fighting back against two thieves and kicking both their butts? I think that's pretty cool.



You would.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> You would.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


>



If it's on a video you believe it, simples.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> If it's on a video you believe it, simples.



Actually there was a case where a Bjj practitioner did subdue and choke out 2 robbers.

He was a man though.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> If it's on a video you believe it, simples.


Tez, telling people what they think is your pet peeve.   Don't do it to hanzou.  

Hanzou, there's a very heated thread regarding the sexualizatio of women you would find interesting and relevant.   You'll have to look for it as I'm in a phone.  This is a very sensitive topic and I strongly urge you to take it easy.   Will escalate quickly.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2014)

[E="Hanzou, post: 1675274, member: 31336"]Actually there was a case where a Bjj practitioner did subdue and choke out 2 robbers.

He was a man though.[/QUOTE]

Good for him.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> [E="Hanzou, post: 1675274, member: 31336"]Actually there was a case where a Bjj practitioner did subdue and choke out 2 robbers.
> 
> He was a man though.



Good for him.[/QUOTE]
It happened once so.....


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> It happened once so.....



Actually it's happened quite a bit. I could link you to the stories if you wish.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually it's happened quite a bit. I could link you to the stories if you wish.


No I don't care


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 16, 2014)

heck I thought the add was a bit over the top but I watched it twice 
no I would not buy a GI because of the add But on the other hand I opened a motorcycle parts store once and I'll be darned but we sold more extended forks and springer front ends because  of an advertisement for the front end  that every single guy that bought and demanded be included in the sale


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> heck I thought the add was a bit over the top but I watched it twice
> no I would not buy a GI because of the add But on the other hand I opened a motorcycle parts store once and I'll be darned but we sold more extended forks and springer front ends because  of an advertisement for the front end  that every single guy that bought and demanded be included in the sale


Nobody claimed sex doesn't sell but that doesn't make it right.  And that ad had nothing to do with BJJ it was selling a Gi or underwear im not really sure


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 16, 2014)

agreed
It was an add for BJJ clothing
not that you could tell until you read the final page/scene of it


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2014)

Lol. Lets just take this up a notch.

Today In Classy MMA News Somebody Paid 300 For Bec Hyatt 8217 s Used Underwear

how do we define the difference between objectifying some. And restricting their freedoms.

if they want to be sexy and it is their choice fine.
if they want to sell that fine.

condemning the behavior of a woman does not exactly empower them.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Nobody claimed sex doesn't sell but that doesn't make it right.  And that ad had nothing to do with BJJ it was selling a Gi or underwear im not really sure



Well it's a Gi for Bjj, and she was performing Bjj techniques while wearing said Bjj Gi, so it had quite a bit to do with Bjj.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well it's a Gi for Bjj, and she was performing Bjj techniques while wearing said Bjj Gi, so it had quite a bit to do with Bjj.


No she was acting and using special effects in her underwear.  It has nothing to do with BJJ.  You posted it to be a clown


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2014)

People do bjj in their underwear.

look up mma candy.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 16, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> No she was acting and using special effects in her underwear.  It has nothing to do with BJJ.  You posted it to be a clown



Every move done in that video is an actual Bjj technique, and well within the capabilities of a Bjj black belt.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Every move done in that video is an actual Bjj technique, and well within the capabilities of a Bjj black belt.


Even the slow motion butt and crotch shots?  It's pathetic


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2014)

Personally I think the commercial is dumb. But the mock outrage is also a little dumb.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> Personally I think the commercial is dumb. But the mock outrage is also a little dumb.



because it is sex and not pure violence.

which for some reason people are more hung up about. Triangle choke someone is ok. Sho some undies?

outrageous.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2014)

I think, for me, it's the undies coupled with the violence.   The undies are an unnecessary element.  Its just dumb.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 17, 2014)

In the beginning of the advert, that was the bait. Lets face it, outright showing, or the silhouette of a pair of boobs sell. Does not matter if either way, the makers count on that fact. The shot of the undies was there so that the male brain imagines just as much as the suggestion. In fact it does matter what product was being sold, the advert had an over the top sexual and suggestive content. IMHO it was wrong and quite cringe worthy. Still, whether there is a case for moral outrage or not, the woman in the advert chose to act the part, even if there was a body double. As long as everybody involved in making this sort of stuff, sex will always sell. Just another sad element of society.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> because it is sex and not pure violence.
> 
> which for some reason people are more hung up about. Triangle choke someone is ok. Sho some undies?
> 
> outrageous.



I take it you haven't seen the amount of nudity we have on British and European television and are fine with then if you think it's about being prudish. There's plenty of people who will condemn the ad for the 'violence' alone by the way, we have a lot of people who campaign here to stop MMA.
The ad was creepy for a start, it was also unrealistic in that two burglars would stop, take of their masks and actually wait for the girl to make a move? that they didn't know she was in the shower? Really? it's glamorising a situation that whether or not the girl was a competent martial artist or not is a nightmare scenario for many. Then to show a sexy woman, along with all those 'artistic' shots of her body is adding insult to injury and for what, to sell a piece of clothing. It is a sad reflection on society indeed.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 17, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I take it you haven't seen the amount of nudity we have on British and European television and are fine with then if you think it's about being prudish. There's plenty of people who will condemn the ad for the 'violence' alone by the way, we have a lot of people who campaign here to stop MMA.
> The ad was creepy for a start, it was also unrealistic in that two burglars would stop, take of their masks and actually wait for the girl to make a move? that they didn't know she was in the shower? Really? it's glamorising a situation that whether or not the girl was a competent martial artist or not is a nightmare scenario for many. Then to show a sexy woman, along with all those 'artistic' shots of her body is adding insult to injury and for what, to sell a piece of clothing. It is a sad reflection on society indeed.



Well to be fair, the two robbers did know she was in the shower, they said that they would be in and out, so the person in the shower wouldn't know they were there. Also one of the robbers did advance on her, which initiated the kick to the stomach.

With that said, do you feel that there were any positives in the advertisement at all?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2014)

I don't have sound on my computer. The ad is pitched to a niche market, BJJers so I think it may be giving out a strange message about them, that it's only ok to be female in BJJ if you are a 'hot' woman, those older, younger, bigger or smaller don't bother turning up because this is how women are perceived in BJJ. It's also an ad for BJJ not just garments worn in it so I'd have a think about how you want your art to be portrayed whether as a vehicle for James Bond type females to show off their 'deadly' moves or as a practical useful martial art. I can see that ad turning off a lot of potential students because it's unrealistic, not the techniques but the way they are portrayed. I can see people shrugging their shoulders and looking elsewhere because of the fantasy element in the ad.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 17, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't have sound on my computer. The ad is pitched to a niche market, BJJers so I think it may be giving out a strange message about them, that it's only ok to be female in BJJ if you are a 'hot' woman, those older, younger, bigger or smaller don't bother turning up because this is how women are perceived in BJJ. It's also an ad for BJJ not just garments worn in it so I'd have a think about how you want your art to be portrayed whether as a vehicle for James Bond type females to show off their 'deadly' moves or as a practical useful martial art. I can see that ad turning off a lot of potential students because it's unrealistic, not the techniques but the way they are portrayed. I can see people shrugging their shoulders and looking elsewhere because of the fantasy element in the ad.



Interesting points Tez. I can definitely see how that sort of thing could potentially turn some people off. I suppose I'm grown used to stuff like MMA candy and similar web series which purposely show women grappling in skimpy clothes, grabbing naughty bits of the body in order to do submissions. I DO cringe at that stuff, and think its unnecessary and over the top.

Anyway, changing gears a bit, I found this ad of children learning MMA and Bjj. I found this interesting because it represents the slow shift of parents having their kids practice MMA and Bjj over traditional kid-friendly arts like TKD (or at least the push from MMA/Bjj gyms to appeal to parents and kids).That said, here's the vid;






 I don't think TKD will be dethroned as the world's most popular. MA anytime soon, but what are your thoughts on children and young people learning chokes and armbars as shown in that vid ?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2014)

I would hesitate to say that TKD is the world's most popular martial art, I wouldn't say it is here in the UK. Judo has always been very popular for children as are the various styles of karate with Shotokan being probably the most popular. Boxing for children has always been a big thing too. While we do have places that teach just for the money the majority of martial arts clubs are still just that clubs which charge to cover rent, equipment etc and maybe make a bit over so we don't tend to have the after school clubs, black belt clubs and so on as money makers that seem to be a TKD commercial type thing and give it that children's martial arts reputation. Few martial arts clubs/schools have their own properties, most use church and village halls along with school halls and gyms. 
We teach our children arm bars and chokes, our instructors first style is Judo so he teaches a lot of that to them along with TSD. When I was doing Wado we also taught arm bars, chokes and take downs to children as well as adults. There is only a difference in intensity and force used between the children's classes and the adults. This I've found is fairly common here. Children's boxing competitions are common here too, many believe that boxing and by extension martial arts teach children more good than bad.


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't have sound on my computer. The ad is pitched to a niche market, BJJers so I think it may be giving out a strange message about them, that it's only ok to be female in BJJ if you are a 'hot' woman, those older, younger, bigger or smaller don't bother turning up because this is how women are perceived in BJJ. It's also an ad for BJJ not just garments worn in it so I'd have a think about how you want your art to be portrayed whether as a vehicle for James Bond type females to show off their 'deadly' moves or as a practical useful martial art. I can see that ad turning off a lot of potential students because it's unrealistic, not the techniques but the way they are portrayed. I can see people shrugging their shoulders and looking elsewhere because of the fantasy element in the ad.


Frankly, I'm not sure who the ad is for.   From what I've seen, female bjj peeps would not appreciate the ad, and it's not targeting men.   Seems like an ad for women made by men... And we all know wphow kikely that is to work.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Frankly, I'm not sure who the ad is for.   From what I've seen, female bjj peeps would not appreciate the ad, and it's not targeting men.   Seems like an ad for women made by men... And we all know wphow kikely that is to work.



Maybe it is meant for spotty male teens stuck behind computers.


----------

