# Michael Bisping oh why you shouldn’t use BJJ in a street fight



## Headhunter

Great video from bisping. Love this guy no nonsense and says what he thinks. Also his first style was jiu jitsu that was base when he was a kid before moving to kickboxing and he was a street fighter in his youth and even went to prison for fighting so he knows about both worlds. I agree with everything he says in this video.


----------



## JowGaWolf




----------



## Headhunter

JowGaWolf said:


>


Oh yes I’m waiting for certain people to jump into this I know exactly which ones will as well


----------



## jobo

Headhunter said:


> Great video from bisping. Love this guy no nonsense and says what he thinks. Also his first style was jiu jitsu that was base when he was a kid before moving to kickboxing and he was a street fighter in his youth and even went to prison for fighting so he knows about both worlds. I agree with everything he says in this video.


i agree with you agreeing with him


----------



## Steve

Headhunter said:


> Great video from bisping. Love this guy no nonsense and says what he thinks. Also his first style was jiu jitsu that was base when he was a kid before moving to kickboxing and he was a street fighter in his youth and even went to prison for fighting so he knows about both worlds. I agree with everything he says in this video.


So, you agree that if you're on your back, you should get up, and you should avoid going to your back, and you should "sweep him, get on top, and control him from guard?"  I don't know... that sounds an awful lot like BJJ to me. As a troll, I give you a 2 out of 10.


----------



## Headhunter

Steve said:


> So, you agree that if you're on your back, you should get up, and you should avoid going to your back, and you should "sweep him, get on top, and control him from guard?"  I don't know... that sounds an awful lot like BJJ to me. As a troll, I give you a 2 out of 10.


Yep you were one of them who I thought would get triggered. What’s the trolling? I posted a video.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> So, you agree that if you're on your back, you should get up, and you should avoid going to your back, and you should "sweep him, get on top, and control him from guard?"  I don't know... that sounds an awful lot like BJJ to me. As a troll, I give you a 2 out of 10.


getting on top has much the same downside as being on the bottom, , thats is your prolonging the '' contest'' and you may have difficulty getting up quickly if the occasion demands.

its clearly about context and situation how much of an issue it is, if your in the middle of nowhere and he is clearly on his own, then by all means take your time, if thers time imperative and or he has mates, then for god sake put him down hard, boot him and leave quickly, thers nothing to be gained by following him to the floor and staying there any longer than you have to


----------



## Tony Dismukes

The trolling comes from whoever titled the video. Probably they just titled it that way to garner views. 

Bisping never says you shouldn't use BJJ in a street fight. What he says is that you don't want to be stuck fighting on your back in a street fight. Guess what? The pioneers of BJJ would say the same thing. 

If you're on the ground in a real fight, you want to be on top. The reason we have guard is because sometimes you don't have a choice. If someone manages to tackle you to the ground and get on top of you (whether through superior wrestling or just through surprise), then achieving guard is much better than getting stuck in the bottom of mount. It gives you some ability to defend yourself and counterattack. Generally your preferred option if that happens is to sweep your opponent and get to the top where you can either control your opponent or disengage as appropriate. Not surprisingly, that's exactly what Bisping advocates. It's also the exact same thing that I, as a BJJ instructor, advocate.


----------



## jobo

Tony Dismukes said:


> The trolling comes from whoever titled the video. Probably they just titled it that way to garner views.
> 
> Bisping never says you shouldn't use BJJ in a street fight. What he says is that you don't want to be stuck fighting on your back in a street fight. Guess what? The pioneers of BJJ would say the same thing.
> 
> If you're on the ground in a real fight, you want to be on top. The reason we have guard is because sometimes you don't have a choice. If someone manages to tackle you to the ground and get on top of you (whether through superior wrestling or just through surprise), then achieving guard is much better than getting stuck in the bottom of mount. It gives you some ability to defend yourself and counterattack. Generally your preferred option if that happens is to sweep your opponent and get to the top where you can either control your opponent or disengage as appropriate. Not surprisingly, that's exactly what Bisping advocates. It's also the exact same thing that I, as a BJJ instructor, advocate.


im with everything you said aprt from one bit,
why is it the preferred option to sweep, im not saying its a bad option, just its doesn't seem preferable to either punching your opponent over or slamming him over. both of which are fairly sure to take most of the fight out of him

and then when you have used the less than optimal sweep, why is preferable to follow him down, the preferable option would seem to be to kick him or stamp him, both of which are A) very effective and b) you dont need to disengage to stand up in a hurry as your already standing, the time saved can be a life saver if his friend(s) are only a few meters away


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> im with everything you said aprt from one bit,
> why is it the preferred option to sweep, im not saying its a bad option, just its doesn't seem preferable to either punching your opponent over or slamming him over. both of which are fairly sure to take most of the fight out of him
> 
> and then when you have used the less than optimal sweep, why is preferable to follow him down, the preferable option would seem to be to kick him or stamp him, both of which are A) very effective and b) you dont need to disengage to stand up in a hurry as your already standing, the time saved can be a life saver if his friend(s) are only a few meters away


Punching from under mount is pretty iffy. Not sure what your plan is for slamming from that position. “Sweep” as I understand it, is the BJJ term for moves from under mount to escape by putting them on the bottom, more or less.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Punching from under mount is pretty iffy. Not sure what your plan is for slamming from that position. “Sweep” as I understand it, is the BJJ term for moves from under mount to escape by putting them on the bottom, more or less.


no we are talking about from a standing position, if you on the bottom against multiple opponents you lost, its rather pointless doing anything much, if your on the top when his mates arive, you lost, which is what i took the quote in the video to relate to,,, STAND UP


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> no we are talking about from a standing position, if you on the bottom against multiple opponents you lost, its rather pointless doing anything much


You might be, but the person you quoted wasn’t, when he spoke of sweeping. Before you get snotty, check your reading.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You might be, but the person you quoted wasn’t, when he spoke of sweeping. Before you get snotty, check your reading.


well then he has veered massively from the topic in hand, which is BJJ is useless in street fights against multiple opponents, IF you go to the floor generally but most particularly if you dont get up more or less instantly, if you can use your BJJ skills from a standing position, to dump them over wreck their joints then its possibly as good as anything else

deliberately putting yourself on the floor is close to suicide, having some way of getting from bottom to top just makes it easier for them to kick you, stay on the bottom and use the guy as a shield


----------



## Tony Dismukes

jobo said:


> im with everything you said aprt from one bit,
> why is it the preferred option to sweep, im not saying its a bad option, just its doesn't seem preferable to either punching your opponent over or slamming him over. both of which are fairly sure to take most of the fight out of him
> 
> and then when you have used the less than optimal sweep, why is preferable to follow him down, the preferable option would seem to be to kick him or stamp him, both of which are A) very effective and b) you dont need to disengage to stand up in a hurry as your already standing, the time saved can be a life saver if his friend(s) are only a few meters away


As Gerry notes, “sweep” in BJJ refers to reversing position from bottom of guard to get on top. For the takedown from standing, we’d generally call that a “foot sweep”. I was describing the optimal course if some has already taken you down and gotten on top of you. If you are already standing then you have more options.


----------



## jobo

Tony Dismukes said:


> As Gerry notes, “sweep” in BJJ refers to reversing position from bottom of guard to get on top. For the takedown from standing, we’d generally call that a “foot sweep”. I was describing the optimal course if some has already taken you down and gotten on top of you. If you are already standing then you have more options.


thanks for the clarification, but we still have the issue raised in the vid, of multiple opponents and the problem of being immobile and at a handy kicking height

im quite certain that bjj can be used effectively from a standing position, but the advice in the vid is good, dont go down and if you do dont mess about controlling the guy, get up at the shortest time you can


----------



## drop bear

Ok. So people understand how fights work. 

There are elements of fighting that take place over a fraction of a second that can determine the outcome. 

Also fighting isn't a story. It is a puzzle. There isn't a single narrative that determines the outcome. There are infinite outcomes determined by our choices.

So if you are on your back and the guy on top is hitting you you will probably have to deal with that first or you are going to have a bad day.  And quite often that is by controlling the situation and denying them space. 

This is regardless as to whether you are concerned that a second person might come in and kick you. 

If you don't  deal with the first problem you won't deal with the second problem. 

So the very first order of business is quite often closed guard, deny space and gain yourself a bit of time. Then when you are not eating elbows. Stand up, sweep, submit.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> thanks for the clarification, but we still have the issue raised in the vid, of multiple opponents and the problem of being immobile and at a handy kicking height
> 
> im quite certain that bjj can be used effectively from a standing position, but the advice in the vid is good, dont go down and if you do dont mess about controlling the guy, get up at the shortest time you can



That issue is still pretty much there for the guy standing as well.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well then he has veered massively from the topic in hand, which is BJJ is useless in street fights against multiple opponents, IF you go to the floor generally but most particularly if you dont get up more or less instantly, if you can use your BJJ skills from a standing position, to dump them over wreck their joints then its possibly as good as anything else
> 
> deliberately putting yourself on the floor is close to suicide, having some way of getting from bottom to top just makes it easier for them to kick you, stay on the bottom and use the guy as a shield



Read the bit where fighting isn't a story.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> The trolling comes from whoever titled the video. Probably they just titled it that way to garner views.
> 
> Bisping never says you shouldn't use BJJ in a street fight. What he says is that you don't want to be stuck fighting on your back in a street fight. Guess what? The pioneers of BJJ would say the same thing.
> 
> If you're on the ground in a real fight, you want to be on top. The reason we have guard is because sometimes you don't have a choice. If someone manages to tackle you to the ground and get on top of you (whether through superior wrestling or just through surprise), then achieving guard is much better than getting stuck in the bottom of mount. It gives you some ability to defend yourself and counterattack. Generally your preferred option if that happens is to sweep your opponent and get to the top where you can either control your opponent or disengage as appropriate. Not surprisingly, that's exactly what Bisping advocates. It's also the exact same thing that I, as a BJJ instructor, advocate.



Which is why people say this gsp like folkstyle wrestling is better for MMA. 

Which BJJ could compete or roll under that rule set if they wanted to.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> That issue is still pretty much there for the guy standing as well.


fighting multiple opponents is a challenge if you have multi directional mobility,it is more or less impossible if you kneeling on someones chest, you right of course standing isnt much better, moving whilst being upright is a lot better


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. So people understand how fights work.
> 
> There are elements of fighting that take place over a fraction of a second that can determine the outcome.
> 
> Also fighting isn't a story. It is a puzzle. There isn't a single narrative that determines the outcome. There are infinite outcomes determined by our choices.
> 
> So if you are on your back and the guy on top is hitting you you will probably have to deal with that first or you are going to have a bad day.  And quite often that is by controlling the situation and denying them space.
> 
> This is regardless as to whether you are concerned that a second person might come in and kick you.
> 
> If you don't  deal with the first problem you won't deal with the second problem.
> 
> So the very first order of business is quite often closed guard, deny space and gain yourself a bit of time. Then when you are not eating elbows. Stand up, sweep, submit.


clearly there are not infinite outcomes


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> fighting multiple opponents is a challenge if you have multi directional mobility,it is more or less impossible if you kneeling on someones chest, you right of course standing isnt much better, moving whilst being upright is a lot better



Sort of. It isn't standing that saves you. People think it is and people get punched in the back of the head a lot for it.

It is running that saves you. 

But kneeling on someone's chest is more likey to result in striking that stops them because gravity is a super power. And that is then one less multiple oponant. 

If you are super slick at gang fights you can stand and cover the guy on the ground while your mate GnP,s him. And you can finish them faster than they finish you hand have two on one fights in your favor. 

Even three or four seconds of that is a pretty a pretty big impact.

So you may take a risk to reduce a risk.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> clearly there are not infinite outcomes



Ok. I fall to the ground in the real world. What happens?

Feel free to stop when your typing finger gets tired.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. I fall to the ground in the real world. What happens?
> 
> Feel free to stop when your typing finger gets tired.




well you either get up or you stop there, general,

but large number do not equal infinity, infinity isnt a number its a concept that comes into play when there are no more numbers left, nb there are always some numbers left, just stick another few zeros on, with the possible exception of the size of the universe, and even that is largely because we cant measure it rather than it cant be measured if we could see far enough


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Sort of. It isn't standing that saves you. People think it is and people get punched in the back of the head a lot for it.
> 
> It is running that saves you.
> 
> But kneeling on someone's chest is more likey to result in striking that stops them because gravity is a super power. And that is then one less multiple oponant.
> 
> If you are super slick at gang fights you can stand and cover the guy on the ground while your mate GnP,s him. And you can finish them faster than they finish you hand have two on one fights in your favor.
> 
> Even three or four seconds of that is a pretty a pretty big impact.
> 
> So you may take a risk to reduce a risk.


if there is trick to multiple opponents its you position yourself fight them one at a time, fighting one whilst another is in a position to hit you seldom ends well


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. So people understand how fights work.
> 
> There are elements of fighting that take place over a fraction of a second that can determine the outcome.
> 
> Also fighting isn't a story. It is a puzzle. There isn't a single narrative that determines the outcome. There are infinite outcomes determined by our choices.
> 
> So if you are on your back and the guy on top is hitting you you will probably have to deal with that first or you are going to have a bad day.  And quite often that is by controlling the situation and denying them space.
> 
> This is regardless as to whether you are concerned that a second person might come in and kick you.
> 
> If you don't  deal with the first problem you won't deal with the second problem.
> 
> So the very first order of business is quite often closed guard, deny space and gain yourself a bit of time. Then when you are not eating elbows. Stand up, sweep, submit.


Well and concisely put.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well you either get up or you stop there, general,
> 
> but large number do not equal infinity, infinity isnt a number its a concept that comes into play when there are no more numbers left, nb there are always some numbers left, just stick another few zeros on, with the possible exception of the size of the universe, and even that is largely because we cant measure it rather than it cant be measured if we could see far enough


So, what is the number that delineates the limit to the possible outcomes from his statement?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> if there is trick to multiple opponents its you position yourself fight them one at a time, fighting one whilst another is in a position to hit you seldom ends well


All good concepts. And all mostly irrelevant in the moment that you are on your back and they have mount. That’s where BJJ has better answers than I’ve seen elsewhere, by a pretty good margin.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, what is the number that delineates the limit to the possible outcomes from his statement?


 two


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> All good concepts. And all mostly irrelevant in the moment that you are on your back and they have mount. That’s where BJJ has better answers than I’ve seen elsewhere, by a pretty good margin.


 we have already had this exact conversation, if your on your back and there are multiple opponents, you've lost,

this to has only two possible outcomes either they kick you to death or they dont


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well you either get up or you stop there, general,
> 
> but large number do not equal infinity, infinity isnt a number its a concept that comes into play when there are no more numbers left, nb there are always some numbers left, just stick another few zeros on, with the possible exception of the size of the universe, and even that is largely because we cant measure it rather than it cant be measured if we could see far enough



Yes but half of infinity equals infinity. And as anything can happen from the probable to outrageously improbable. From standing up to a plane landing on your head. 

Infinite is accurate here.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yes but half of infinity equals infinity. And as anything can happen from the probable to outrageously improbable. From standing up to a plane landing on your head.
> 
> Infinite is accurate here.


but infinity isnt a number you cant times it  by a number  and get a number as the answers, its like if  times love by two, the answer is still love, its the question that is failing to know what either infinity or love are

but the answer to your questions isnt infinity or in fact any number equal or greater than 3


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> we have already had this exact conversation, if your on your back and there are multiple opponents, you've lost,
> 
> this to has only two possible outcomes either they kick you to death or they dont



Ok as they kick you they trip over and knock themselves out.

So that is now 3 outcomes.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok as they kick you they trip over and knock themselves out.
> 
> So that is now 3 outcomes.


you've clearly never done logic trees

that still only two out comes, that falls under didnt kick you to death, if you want to add an or gate you need to find something not covered the other two existing or gates, and as its binary i dont think thats likely, but go on, surprise me


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> you've clearly never done logic trees
> 
> that still only two out comes, that falls under didnt kick you to death, if you want to add an or gate you need to find something not covered the other two existing or gates, and as its binary i dont think thats likely, but go on, surprise me


Outcomes in this context are the endpoints, not the immediate branches.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Outcomes in this context are the endpoints, not the immediate branches.


being dead is an end point, being alive is as well, there arnt any intermediate branches


----------



## Steve

Headhunter said:


> Yep you were one of them who I thought would get triggered. What’s the trolling? I posted a video.


Do you know what trolling is?  It's when you post something inflammatory for the sole purpose of starting some ****. 

You are literally admitting to trolling.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Punching from under mount is pretty iffy. Not sure what your plan is for slamming from that position. “Sweep” as I understand it, is the BJJ term for moves from under mount to escape by putting them on the bottom, more or less.


well, technically, you can't sweep from under mount.  But yeah, the idea is to improve your position so that you have options.  From under mount, priority one is to fix that.  Then you can think about sweeping or standing up.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> well, technically, you can't sweep from under mount.  But yeah, the idea is to improve your position so that you have options.  From under mount, priority one is to fix that.  Then you can think about sweeping or standing up.



Hip bump. Like day one bjj self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> being dead is an end point, being alive is as well, there arnt any intermediate branches


Nice binary view. Unfortunately it excludes all the variations that don’t result in immediate death.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> well, technically, you can't sweep from under mount.  But yeah, the idea is to improve your position so that you have options.  From under mount, priority one is to fix that.  Then you can think about sweeping or standing up.


Thanks for the correction. So the basic progression is to get them out of mount (by which I presume you mean a specific advantageous position) to be able to sweep?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Hip bump. Like day one bjj self defense.


I was being pedantic. It's not technically a sweep. It's a reversal.  Of course you can roll the guy.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Thanks for the correction. So the basic progression is to get them out of mount (by which I presume you mean a specific advantageous position) to be able to sweep?


It is kind of like saying clip instead magazine to a gun nut.  Basically if you hip bump or otherwise reverse your position from under mount, it's a reversal to guard.  Technically, you can only sweep from some form of guard (full, half, spider, de la Riva etc).


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you've clearly never done logic trees
> 
> that still only two out comes, that falls under didnt kick you to death, if you want to add an or gate you need to find something not covered the other two existing or gates, and as its binary i dont think thats likely, but go on, surprise me



A plane falls on your head and so you were neither kicked to death or got up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It is kind of like saying clip instead magazine to a gun nut.  Basically if you hip bump or otherwise reverse your position from under mount, it's a reversal to guard.  Technically, you can only sweep from some form of guard (full, half, spider, de la Riva etc).


Thanks. I like knowing the correct terms when I’m talking with folks about what they do. I missed the distinction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A plane falls on your head and so you were neither kicked to death or got up.


Guy tries to kick you to death, misses, slips on the oily ground (“the street” is always a bad surface, right?), and falls on your head.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Thanks. I like knowing the correct terms when I’m talking with folks about what they do. I missed the distinction.


The distinction between a “sweep” (from guard) vs a “reversal” (from any other bottom position) is pretty much unique to BJJ terminology. I haven’t seen it in any other grappling art, although it does seem to have carried over somewhat to MMA. The only real importance is that in BJJ competition a sweep gets you points while a reversal does not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Thanks. I like knowing the correct terms when I’m talking with folks about what they do. I missed the distinction.


https://ibjjf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RulesIBJJF_v4_en-US.pdf  Section 4.6 page 20.  The way I think of it is that points are the reward for sweeping an opponent from guard.  The reward for escaping from under mount is that you are no longer under mount.


Tony Dismukes said:


> The distinction between a “sweep” (from guard) vs a “reversal” (from any other bottom position) is pretty much unique to BJJ terminology. I haven’t seen it in any other grappling art, although it does seem to have carried over somewhat to MMA. The only real importance is that in BJJ competition a sweep gets you points while a reversal does not.


I really intended the comment to be tongue in cheek, but I guess my comedic timing is a little off.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Guy tries to kick you to death, misses, slips on the oily ground (“the street” is always a bad surface, right?), and falls on your head.


Guy tries to kick you, but he rolls a 1 and fumbles.  He falls and accidentally drops the hand grenade he was carrying (with the pin out), killing himself and severely injuring three of his buddies, who are all unable to continue fighting.  You're now in a one on one fight, and really glad you pulled guard so that your opponent was shielding you from the grenade.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> https://ibjjf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RulesIBJJF_v4_en-US.pdf  Section 4.6 page 20.  The way I think of it is that points are the reward for sweeping an opponent from guard.  The reward for escaping from under mount is that you are no longer under mount.</quote>
> That makes sense. I was thinking of it from a self-defense standpoint, thinking it’d make more sense to award point for reversals.
> <quote>I really intended the comment to be tongue in cheek, but I guess my comedic timing is a little off.


It’s the lack of hair. We can’t see the follicular expressions.


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> Also his first style was jiu jitsu that was base when he was a kid before moving to kickboxing and he was a street fighter in his youth and even went to prison for fighting so he knows about both worlds.



He didn't go to prison and wasn't a street fighter, he had a disciplined upbringing by his soldier father. I know both of them and know these assertions aren't true, what is true is that are both numpties.


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> He didn't go to prison and wasn't a street fighter, he had a disciplined upbringing by his soldier father. I know both of them and know these assertions aren't true, what is true is that are both numpties.


Huh funny that because he literally said both things in his own book.... and it’s widely known it caused him issues getting a visa at the beginning of his ufc career....out of you and him I believe his word not yours


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> He didn't go to prison and wasn't a street fighter, he had a disciplined upbringing by his soldier father. I know both of them and know these assertions aren't true, what is true is that are both numpties.


Here you go taken straight from his book. Not only did he get a prison sentence the judge also said that he’d been fined for fighting before Guess you didn’t know them as well as you claim to...whoops


----------



## Steve

Headhunter said:


> Here you go taken straight from his book. Not only did he get a prison sentence the judge also said that he’d been fined for fighting before Guess you didn’t know them as well as you claim to...whoops
> View attachment 22933
> 
> View attachment 22932


Does the book address his lineage as a numpty, son of a numpty?


----------



## Headhunter

Steve said:


> Does the book address his lineage as a numpty, son of a numpty?


Well she already got 2 out of 3 wrong so it’s a fair guess the third is wrong as well


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> Here you go taken straight from his book. Not only did he get a prison sentence the judge also said that he’d been fined for fighting before Guess you didn’t know them as well as you claim to...whoops
> View attachment 22933
> 
> View attachment 22932




LOL and of course they always tell the truth in their books. Oh dear, money wasted on his book which he didn't write anyway. it sounds good doesn't it, all the catch phrases 'street fighter', been in prison', yeah and there's those who believe the planet is flat.


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> LOL and of course they always tell the truth in their books. Oh dear, money wasted on his book which he didn't write anyway. it sounds good doesn't it, all the catch phrases 'street fighter', been in prison', yeah and there's those who believe the planet is flat.


I’ll believe it over some random nobody on the internet


----------



## Tez3

Headhunter said:


> I’ll believe it over some random nobody on the internet




Oooooo get you sunshine.
Bisping also suggested in an interview he fought and won a fight with a prosthetic eye lol, and he got jumped by 15 gypsies beating them all, the man's an idiot, he didn't say however you shouldn't use BJJ in a fight btw. 
I may be a nobody but it's miles better than being a first class plonker


----------



## Headhunter

Lol


----------



## punisher73

Headhunter said:


> I’ll believe it over some random nobody on the internet



I know Tez can stick up for herself with no problems, but this just annoyed me.  Tez has been involved in the fight game for YEARS in the UK.  She has seen most of the people coming up in that time.  Reading her posts, I put more stock into what she says about Bisping than his stretch of the truth.

He went for 28 days!  Are jails and prisons different in the UK?  I see the news media always messing this up and using jail/prison interchangeably when they are very different places.


----------



## jobo

punisher73 said:


> I know Tez can stick up for herself with no problems, but this just annoyed me.  Tez has been involved in the fight game for YEARS in the UK.  She has seen most of the people coming up in that time.  Reading her posts, I put more stock into what she says about Bisping than his stretch of the truth.
> 
> He went for 28 days!  Are jails and prisons different in the UK?  I see the news media always messing this up and using jail/prison interchangeably when they are very different places.


clearly they are different, the UK doesn't have any jails only prisons. we dont therefore have jailers only prison guards. however the act-of being sent to prison is called being jailed

so the prison is the building, jailing is the act of punishment


----------



## Headhunter

punisher73 said:


> I know Tez can stick up for herself with no problems, but this just annoyed me.  Tez has been involved in the fight game for YEARS in the UK.  She has seen most of the people coming up in that time.  Reading her posts, I put more stock into what she says about Bisping than his stretch of the truth.
> 
> He went for 28 days!  Are jails and prisons different in the UK?  I see the news media always messing this up and using jail/prison interchangeably when they are very different places.


Good for you my friend I am more than happy to not listen to what she has to say. As there is way more evidence to support his side....the guy had visa issues that plagued his career. He was meant to fight on an ultimate fighter finale card but the fight got cancelled due to visa issues and had to be rescheduled. When he coached TUF he was late arriving from the Uk again visa issues...sooo yeah there we go and yes he went for 28 days...for a street fight that didn’t cause any injury to anyone involved and the other guy didn’t press charges but he’d already been fined for fighting in the past. That’s a fairly normal sentence for a street fight for a guy with a record so yeah I’m happy to believe what’s written and it’d be stupid to lie...because it’d be very easy to be proven wrong. So yes I believe him over someone on the Internet. Feel free to get as upset and annoyed as you like


----------



## Tez3

Oh dear oh dear, believing a celebrity who has a book and himself as a brand to sell is always a risky thing to do. Bisping likes to look like a 'bad boy' because it suits the narrative, 'yeah I'm a street fighter', reads well to the fan boys. Most people in MMA in the UK think Bisping is an idiot, when he was fighting foreigners he was supported in public but really everyone knows what a prat he is. 

Look at the media these days and you will see how many lies there are by those with something to sell, and boy have some people bought it. It's all about image and sellablility.

I really don't care whether you believe me or don't, it's not my monkey and not my circus but when you get what he actually says wrong ( he didn't say don't use BJJ in 'street' fights) it doesn't do much for credibility.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear oh dear, believing a celebrity who has a book and himself as a brand to sell is always a risky thing to do. Bisping likes to look like a 'bad boy' because it suits the narrative, 'yeah I'm a street fighter', reads well to the fan boys. Most people in MMA in the UK think Bisping is an idiot, when he was fighting foreigners he was supported in public but really everyone knows what a prat he is.
> 
> Look at the media these days and you will see how many lies there are by those with something to sell, and boy have some people bought it. It's all about image and sellablility.
> 
> I really don't care whether you believe me or don't, it's not my monkey and not my circus but when you get what he actually says wrong ( he didn't say don't use BJJ in 'street' fights) it doesn't do much for credibility.


Are arrest and prison records public information in the UK?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Are arrest and prison records public information in the UK?


no not generally, though court records are, if you know where to start looking


----------



## punisher73

jobo said:


> clearly they are different, the UK doesn't have any jails only prisons. we dont therefore have jailers only prison guards. however the act-of being sent to prison is called being jailed
> 
> so the prison is the building, jailing is the act of punishment



Thanks for the information.  It is different here in the US.  Jail is where you go while awaiting court/sentencing.  If convicted, you can spend 1-2 years in jail.  Each state has a different "cap" on their jail time before going to prison.  For example, in Michigan the most you can be sentenced to jail is 1 year.  (usually run by the County/Parish Sheriff).  If the sentence is longer than that (felony), then you go to prison to do your time, these are usually run by the state (although some privatized exist).

So, 28 days on a sentence is a very LOW offense in this country.


----------



## Steve

But is Bisping a numpty?


----------



## Karate student96

Love bisping one of my favourites. Never in a boring fight, always bought it and fought hard incredible heart...took a flying knee and continued. Always battled back after a loss. Won the title on 2 weeks notice. The only British MMA fighter to win a ufc title.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> But is Bisping a numpty?



Probably more of a Muppet


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Probably more of a Muppet


Ah, so maybe a doofus, nitwit, or dork... maybe a schlemiel?


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Bisping never says you shouldn't use BJJ in a street fight. What he says is that you don't want to be stuck fighting on your back in a street fight. Guess what? The pioneers of BJJ would say the same thing.



Exactly right. It's incredible that people still don't get that.


----------



## Tez3

Karate student96 said:


> Love bisping one of my favourites. Never in a boring fight, always bought it and fought hard incredible heart...took a flying knee and continued. Always battled back after a loss. Won the title on 2 weeks notice. The only British MMA fighter to win a ufc title.



You should have a look at his pro debut fight, against a military medic with little training and recovering from cancer. It was a worked fight to start padding his record.

Yes he's an arrogant muppet, so is his father.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> You should have a look at his pro debut fight, against a military medic with little training and recovering from cancer. It was a worked fight to start padding his record.
> 
> Yes he's an arrogant muppet, so is his father.


Welcome back, @Tez3


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Welcome back, @Tez3



Cheers, I've been busy lol. We adopted an ex racing greyhound called Enzo, he's totally gorgeous but had never been in a house before so lots of training. He learnt quickly and is now a 45mph couchpotato.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Cheers, I've been busy lol. We adopted an ex racing greyhound called Enzo, he's totally gorgeous but had never been in a house before so lots of training. He learnt quickly and is now a 45mph couchpotato.
> 
> View attachment 23243


Enzo looks so cute!  I've never adopted a greyhound, but have known several who have retired from racing and settled very nicely into families of friends.  They're wonderful dogs, and the ones I've met are surprisingly mellow.


----------

