# How Do You Avoid The Ground?



## MJS (Dec 6, 2010)

Usually any time the ground is mentioned, someone tends to bring up the 'stats' of all fights or a high percentage (90%-95%) of them go to the ground.

This thread isn't intended to debate the stats, but instead to talk about what each of you personally do, to avoid going to the ground.  In theory, yes, its easy to say, "I"ll never be taken down!!!" but in reality, its possible that we may trip, etc and the need to be able to survive will be there.

So, what do you do to avoid being taken down?  Do you crosstrain in a grappling based art?  Do you use strikes, and footwork to avoid the clinch? etc.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 6, 2010)

Wow, okay Mike, this isn't that easy to answer in words (didn't fancy a quick trip to Melbourne so we can cover this in a bit of detail?), but I'll see if I can cover some of our base concepts.

To begin with, one of our fundamental ideas is to avoid confronting an opponent in their area of strength, so avoiding going to ground against a grappler is one expression of that. In essence, our street expression of that is to either strike or kick (keeping out of the grapplers range). Now, obviously that's a lot easier to say than to do, but it is something that we train relatively frequently, using specific skill-based drills against fast, realistic attacks. As I said, not so easy to discuss with words (without writing down our specific technical approach, and as the program is my Chief Instructors, I'm not about to put it down here).

We add to that by training methods of escape and getting up from the ground, rather than stay there to fight them. So even if our defences stopping the takedown don't work, we then have the escape to fall back on, and only as a last resort do we try to fight them on the ground (assuming that they are wanting to keep the fight there... if they aren't comfortable on the ground, and it's tactically safe to do so, by all means take them there!)

In the end, what it comes down to is managing distance. A specialist (in this case, a ground fighter) will want to take a fight to the place where they are feel the most comfortable. So that will mean, in this case, the ground. A generalist (like us) will want to manage the fight away from where the specialist wants to take it... so that is our approach. And it comes down to whichever is better at getting the right distance.

One point of note, here. Training in a specialist system in order to defeat a specialist system-trained person is great on paper, but the actual end result is that you are training to win in the other specialists area of strength, not actually defeat them there. Subtle difference....


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 6, 2010)

It can be quite difficult honestly.  A good wrestler is hard to stop, especially if you don't know your opponent is a wrestler ahead of time.  

Unfortunately, if you're in punch and kick range, you're inside of the distance a good wrestler can shoot in and take you down.  

My basic ideas/strategies for self defense in general (helps a lot with ground defense)
1)  Never be directly in front of your opponent, you always want an angle to their centerline and to be off of their centerline.  This opens up angles of attack for you, and closes them off for them.  Helps negate the wrestlers shot and makes anything off of their rear side a much longer, weaker strike to come at you.  

2)  Hip Distance, try to keep the hips back when body contact occurs.  This gives you room to knee, throw, etc and makes it harder for them to take you down or throw you.    

3) Center of gravity, try to keep my center of gravity below my opponents, this makes it harder for them to off balance me or lift me.  

4) Continuously hit your opponent.  Keep hitting them, whether it's little slaps to the ears, short elbows to the chin, jabs to the nose, slamming your shoulder into his chin or nose, keep up a constant street of attacks to their face/eyes area to keep their mind off of what they're trying to accomplish.  Especially if they get in and clinch with you.  

5) Once you get taken down (and you will unless you are better at grappling than your opponent), continuously strike your opponent and keep on moving.  Essentially, spas out and make them think only about covering up from your blitzkrieg on the ground, this gives you a chance to escape to your feet. If you give a grappler a chance to set themselves on the ground, you're pretty well screwed.  

Lots and LOTS of drilling and practice in the gym with some good wrestlers to see how well it works and learn what you can and cannot get away with.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Lots and LOTS of drilling and *practice in the gym with some good wrestlers* to see how well it works and learn what you can and cannot get away with.


Ultimately, whatever you are training, if you aren't somehow incorporating this very important element, it's a crap shoot. 



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Now, obviously that's a lot easier to say than to do, but it is something that we train relatively frequently, using specific skill-based drills *against fast, realistic attacks*.


The bolded parts are where a disconnect exists for me. Chris, you seem like a serious, very credible guy so please don't take this as a knock against you. I'm just pointing out a common problem I see. 

If I were training in a "generalist" system where I'm banking on being able to avoid or neutralize my opponent's ground skills, training against legitimate ground fighters would be crucial. I've seen a lot of videos where guys are demonstrating takedown defense against "realistic" takedowns, but it was just their own guys doing what they thought was a good takedown.

IMO, if self defense is the goal and you're training specifically to avoid takedowns and to be able to get back up once on the ground, you need to be periodically pressure testing these techniques against legitimate grapplers. I'd also add that judoka, jiu-jitiero and wrestlers will share techniques but will approach combat differently, so periodically working with experienced grapplers in multiple disciplines would be important, too.

For the record, I'm not saying you have to train and become an expert in these systems. I'm saying that any techniques you are working on would need, at some point, to be trained against credible grapplers... not guys in your own gym who are faking it.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 6, 2010)

You must train with experienced grapplers who are really trying to take you down.  Many systems have anti-grappling techniques, but if those technoques have not been trained with resisting traning partners, it is highly unlikely those techniques will be able to be applied when needed.  You also find out what is myth and what is not real quickly.  You hear a lot of advice out there that doesn't work and in some cases actually works for a person trying to take you down.

I'd also reccomend training some ground work as well.  While the perfect scenario is not to go to the ground, fights rarely follow perfection.  If you've never been trained for ground fighting, it can be an eye opening experience.  If nothing else, you want to be trained enough to keep from getting put in no recover positions and to get back to your feet.


----------



## Tanaka (Dec 6, 2010)

I'd say make sure you practice balancing exercises to increase your balance. A guy with good balance can be hard to take down at times. Then it would be good to do what everyone else is saying. Practice against legitimate grapplers and find ways to neutralize their control. Find ways to break their grips and get away from them. Then find ways to escape and properly get up during a fight if you're taken down.


----------



## oaktree (Dec 6, 2010)

MJS said:


> Usually any time the ground is mentioned, someone tends to bring up the 'stats' of all fights or a high percentage (90%-95%) of them go to the ground.
> 
> This thread isn't intended to debate the stats, but instead to talk about what each of you personally do, to avoid going to the ground. In theory, yes, its easy to say, "I"ll never be taken down!!!" but in reality, its possible that we may trip, etc and the need to be able to survive will be there.
> 
> So, what do you do to avoid being taken down? Do you crosstrain in a grappling based art? Do you use strikes, and footwork to avoid the clinch? etc.


 
I will say based on 3 things 1.avoiding going to the ground 2.going to the ground safe 3.being comfortable on the ground.

The first way dealing with avoiding the ground. This can be done by distance,timing,sprawling,rooting,positioning.

The second deals with going to the ground in break falls,rolling.

The third deals with being taken or taking to the ground and being able to be able to defend yourself intelligently or resulting in enough knowledge to get back to your feet.

In fighting someone looking to take me to the ground the person must first close the distance needed to grab me and then break my balance resulting in the takedown or throw. Angling, distancing, positioning, rooting, footwork, striking can all result in a decrease of closing the gap needed to effectively grab or shoot in.

Once the grab or clinch is in then sprawling, postitioning, rooting, sinking gravity can decrease the chances of being taken down.

If you are going down then learn to breakfall this can result in a sacrifice throw or putting yourself in a better position. The only way to really learn this is to practice being taken down and practice breakfalls, reverals and getting hands on time dealing with a grappler.

When you are on your back it can be disorienting it can cause panic if you are familar with the ground and being on your back then your chance of 1.getting back to your feet or 2. submission increases.

These are just my opinions.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 6, 2010)

MJS said:


> Usually any time the ground is mentioned, someone tends to bring up the 'stats' of all fights or a high percentage (90%-95%) of them go to the ground.
> 
> This thread isn't intended to debate the stats, but instead to talk about what each of you personally do, to avoid going to the ground.  In theory, yes, its easy to say, "I"ll never be taken down!!!" but in reality, its possible that we may trip, etc and the need to be able to survive will be there.
> 
> So, what do you do to avoid being taken down?  Do you crosstrain in a grappling based art?  Do you use strikes, and footwork to avoid the clinch? etc.


You can't always avoid going to the ground or being taken down.  Some tactics to do so can include evading the sweep/takedown attempt, counterstriking the grappler as they enter, and, of course, using sound principles when you kick or advance to minimize your vulnerability.  Like Chris Parker said -- easier to explain in doing than in words...

If down, really, the emphasis becomes dealing with the grappler (if necessary) and getting back to your feet.  There are tactics to do this that can take the attacker down while pulling you up, for example!


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Wow, okay Mike, this isn't that easy to answer in words (didn't fancy a quick trip to Melbourne so we can cover this in a bit of detail?), but I'll see if I can cover some of our base concepts.


 
I'll hop on the next flight.   LOL, maybe one of these days though.  



> To begin with, one of our fundamental ideas is to avoid confronting an opponent in their area of strength, so avoiding going to ground against a grappler is one expression of that. In essence, our street expression of that is to either strike or kick (keeping out of the grapplers range). Now, obviously that's a lot easier to say than to do, but it is something that we train relatively frequently, using specific skill-based drills against fast, realistic attacks. As I said, not so easy to discuss with words (without writing down our specific technical approach, and as the program is my Chief Instructors, I'm not about to put it down here).


 
Actually, this is how I gear my defense as well.  IMO, for me anyways, its helpful to have an understanding of how a grappler operates.  And yes, I agree, stuff like this is easier seen, than written. 



> We add to that by training methods of escape and getting up from the ground, rather than stay there to fight them. So even if our defences stopping the takedown don't work, we then have the escape to fall back on, and only as a last resort do we try to fight them on the ground (assuming that they are wanting to keep the fight there... if they aren't comfortable on the ground, and it's tactically safe to do so, by all means take them there!)


 
Agreed!!  I think that many times, this is what people assume...that going to the ground means trying to submit via choke, lock, etc.  Personally, I dont want to stay there any longer than need be, so know enough about the ground to get back up safely.  If you can't, at least you know enough to survive.



> In the end, what it comes down to is managing distance. A specialist (in this case, a ground fighter) will want to take a fight to the place where they are feel the most comfortable. So that will mean, in this case, the ground. A generalist (like us) will want to manage the fight away from where the specialist wants to take it... so that is our approach. And it comes down to whichever is better at getting the right distance.


 
True.



> One point of note, here. Training in a specialist system in order to defeat a specialist system-trained person is great on paper, but the actual end result is that you are training to win in the other specialists area of strength, not actually defeat them there. Subtle difference....


 
Agree


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> It can be quite difficult honestly. A good wrestler is hard to stop, especially if you don't know your opponent is a wrestler ahead of time.
> 
> Unfortunately, if you're in punch and kick range, you're inside of the distance a good wrestler can shoot in and take you down.
> 
> ...


 
Very good points, and actually one of them that you made, will lead to my next segment of this thread.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Ultimately, whatever you are training, if you aren't somehow incorporating this very important element, it's a crap shoot.
> 
> The bolded parts are where a disconnect exists for me. Chris, you seem like a serious, very credible guy so please don't take this as a knock against you. I'm just pointing out a common problem I see.
> 
> ...


 
Great post Steve!  Actually, this is what I find myself saying when I'm talking to other Kenpoists about grappling/ground fighting....that its important to work with a specialist, rather than another Kenpo person, who probably isn't going to be giving the most realistic attack.  

This is what I like to do.  If I can test my stuff against a grappler whos better than me (not that I'm a BJJ BB or some pro grappler ) and be able to make my defense better, than IMO, you'll be all that much prepared.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> 4) Continuously hit your opponent. Keep hitting them, whether it's little slaps to the ears, short elbows to the chin, jabs to the nose, slamming your shoulder into his chin or nose, keep up a constant street of attacks to their face/eyes area to keep their mind off of what they're trying to accomplish. Especially if they get in and clinch with you.


 
Many times, when we talk about the ground game, we of course, talk about strikes.  Usually when certain strikes are mentioned, someone, usually the grappler, will say that a) certain strikes are not effective, and b) that they can do the same thing.  Well, of course b. is a no brainer. LOL.  

What does everyone feel are the best or more effective shots to use?  FWIW, I think that the above mentioned strikes are pretty effective.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 6, 2010)

As my Sensei has already posted on this and covered most of it, I'm mainly just responding to the last post here. 

We train all those strikes but also little flesh grabs or "survival grabs" which - take it from me - are extremely painful and disorienting. They only work for a split second but it's enough to make use of and gain the advantage. Especially when you are trying to throw off an attacker while on the ground as we went through last week, little things like grabs or even applying to pressure to certain points like just under the ear do a lot to take the opponent off balance allowing you to get free, get up and move on


----------



## Rayban (Dec 6, 2010)

Just a quick addition to what Mr. Vijai was saying.

In addition to training on the ground using flesh grabs and some pretty real struggling (my body speaks for itself over the last week), we also train with people of varying size and weight to get a feel for what a larger framed person is like bearing down on you versus a smaller one.


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 7, 2010)

MJS said:


> Many times, when we talk about the ground game, we of course, talk about strikes.  Usually when certain strikes are mentioned, someone, usually the grappler, will say that a) certain strikes are not effective, and b) that they can do the same thing.  Well, of course b. is a no brainer. LOL.
> 
> What does everyone feel are the best or more effective shots to use?  FWIW, I think that the above mentioned strikes are pretty effective.



Whatever is available and doesn't injure you.  Say you get taken down, but manage to establish a closed guard.  From there, you start hitting, your opponent will do one of two things, try to get distance (which is when you try to escape), or cover up (which is when you try to escape).  From my experience, unless you have an insane amount of striking power (we're talking Igor Vovchanchyn levels of power here), you're not going to do a lot of damage on your back.  But what you can do, is constant harassing strikes, palm heels/slaps to the ears, temple, top of head, base of the skull, etc, elbows to the top of the head, etc.  I'm not trying to hit hard, I'm not gonna KO my opponent with arm strikes, maybe with up kicks, but not arm strikes.  My goal is to get them thinking about all those smacks on the head instead of pounding on me or holding me down.  Then escape.  

What I've found works best for me when I'm on my back was to pull their head down with my left hand and get on my left hip (kind of sliding out from under them so I'm kind of on my left side) while my right hand palm heels/slaps to the head, along with short elbows.  I want a machine gun style attack on them to get them to cover up.  Back of the head for SD, top/side for MMA.  

YMMV.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 7, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Back of the head for SD, top/side for MMA.
> 
> YMMV.



Just a quick question, wouldn't the back of the head be a bit too awkward to hit hard enough to stun them if you are on your back/side and they are on top of you/facing you on the ground as you need to reach around their head for the strike? Why not just go for face/throat/ribs/sternum for the SD? Just trying to get a handle of different approaches, no disrespect intended.


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 7, 2010)

Supra Vijai said:


> Just a quick question, wouldn't the back of the head be a bit too awkward to hit hard enough to stun them if you are on your back/side and they are on top of you/facing you on the ground as you need to reach around their head for the strike? Why not just go for face/throat/ribs/sternum for the SD? Just trying to get a handle of different approaches, no disrespect intended.



Well, if you're on the ground and you let them posture up and get distance between you so they are looking down at you, it's not going to matter where you try to hit since they're going to smash your face in anyways, they can use their whole body plus gravity to punch down at you, you have only your arms punching upwards, not much power there.  You MIGHT be able to land a shot in the eye or throat and stun them, but it's easy to miss small targets that are easily defended.  If they have that much distance, you should either be trying to get your legs up and push off ala Cro Cop vs Fujita or up kick ala Okami x Silva (silva KO'ed okami by kicking up when okami got distance), or pull them back down tight and effectively smother their strikes.  Getting out to one side slightly gives you an angle on that side to throw arm strikes, whereas they on top will be too tight to really do much except a very short strike to the ribs that is hindered by their own body and the ground.  

I prefer to keep them in tight, it lets me control them easier and stop them from accessing a weapon, hit me, and lets me setup my escapes easier.   If they get posture before i can pull them down, then I'm using my legs to try to escape, but that turns into a scramble and nobody really has the advantage there.  

To quote myself:  "What I've found works best for me when I'm on my back was to pull their head down with my left hand and get on my left hip (kind of sliding out from under them so I'm kind of on my left side) while my right hand palm heels/slaps to the head, along with short elbows. I want a machine gun style attack on them to get them to cover up. Back of the head for SD, top/side for MMA."

As always, YMMV


----------



## Rayban (Dec 7, 2010)

Supra Vijai said:


> Just a quick question, wouldn't the back of the head be a bit too awkward to hit hard enough to stun them if you are on your back/side and they are on top of you/facing you on the ground as you need to reach around their head for the strike? Why not just go for face/throat/ribs/sternum for the SD? Just trying to get a handle of different approaches, no disrespect intended.




I think that more applies if they are close to you (as they should be if they know what they are doing) and/or have their guard up.  If they're right ontop of you, you can hit at the back of the head and base of the neck.  Failing that, a flesh grab at the back of then neck or pulling their hair should give you the same result.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 8, 2010)

Skpotamus, I'd agree with the pulling them close aspect of it. In fact the timing of this thread is brilliant - something we were talking about in class last night - as we are currently studying ground defence/escapes. We got made very aware of the importance of bringing your opponent in close to control/staying close to them if/when you manage to "reverse" positions. 

When training it with situational context though, without giving too much away, we train with the mindset that you are jarred for a second after being taken down which lets them rear up and start raining down hits, at this point, we don't focus so much on striking them as jamming their strikes and finding an opening to clinch them close and restrict their movements before countering. In that context, for myself sides of the head and body seem a lot more natural and powerful. But as you said, everyone would have their own styles/preferences that come through and I guess that's what MA/SD should be about - doing what works for you in order to "win" or survive respectively


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 8, 2010)

Good rooting, wear good shoes.
Read the attacker and the surroundings.
Distancing, avoidance. Be light on your feet. Of course run if able.
Make noise, yell FIRE to bring help. Crush car vindows to set off alarms. Grappling takes more time than shooting someone after all.
Strike hard, strike first if the situation calls for it, strike vulnerable spots.
Know how to grapple standing up and to break holds/ block throws. 
Know how to fall, with or without an opponent on a hard surface. Use the drop to hurt the attacker.
Cross train grappling and with strikes mixed in.
There is no technique too dirty. Biting, headbutts, spitting, fishooks, slamming the attacker`s face against the asphalt etc are great. Any hard object like your cellphone can be used to crack skulls.
Know how to move and strike down on the ground outside grappling range.
Train how to get up quickly while keeping aware of your surroundings.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 8, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Good rooting, wear good shoes.
> Read the attacker and the surroundings.
> Distancing, avoidance. Be light on your feet. Of course run if able.
> Make noise, yell FIRE to bring help. Crush car vindows to set off alarms. Grappling takes more time than shooting someone after all.
> ...



If I may summarise Cirdan? Basically it's "fight like a ninja "


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 8, 2010)

Supra Vijai said:


> If I may summarise Cirdan? Basically it's "fight like a ninja "


 
Thank you, I don`t carry any of those smoke bombs tho


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 8, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Thank you, I don`t carry any of those smoke bombs tho



Haha neither, they tend to set of too many smoke alarms and the last thing you need is a noise trail showing which way you went during your escape


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 8, 2010)

Hey, Steve,

In essence, I agree with you completely. However in the specifics I disagree. It may help if I clarify what I mean when I talk about realistic attacks, to the degree that this medium allows, so I'll try that.



stevebjj said:


> Skpotamus said:
> 
> 
> > Lots and LOTS of drilling and *practice in the gym with some good wrestlers* to see how well it works and learn what you can and cannot get away with.
> ...


 
This is kinda getting at what I mean when I'm talking about specifics here. Let's see how we go.



stevebjj said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Now, obviously that's a lot easier to say than to do, but it is something that we train relatively frequently, using specific skill-based drills *against fast, realistic attacks.*
> ...


 
Ha, no offence taken, Steve. And as I said, in essence I agree with you completely. As to the problem I think you're refering to here (people not quite understanding what realistic attacks and training is), I see the same thing in a lot of things, really, so I'm with you there as well.



stevebjj said:


> If I were training in a "generalist" system where I'm banking on being able to avoid or neutralize my opponent's ground skills, training against legitimate ground fighters would be crucial. I've seen a lot of videos where guys are demonstrating takedown defense against "realistic" takedowns, but it was just their own guys doing what they thought was a good takedown.


 
Yep, seen the same thing. So let's see if I can get across what I'm talking about, and where my understanding comes from.

First off, our classes are very much reflective of our "generalist" philosophy expressed in our system. To that end the class is split into three primary sections, being Traditional Unarmed Combat (techniques/drills taken from the various classical schools we train), Weaponry (most commonly traditional again, but can be modern, such as baton, knife, knife and pistol defence, and so on), and Modern Self Defence (which covers a large range of concepts and topics... realistically, you would need to be with us for at least two years to go through everything at least once). These classes are 1 1/2 hours long (due to restraint on the availability of the rooms hired), which means that each section is between 20 and 25 minutes, including instruction/explanation/demonstration. Add to that the fact that the classes are held once a week (in two locations, should the students want more class-time... highly recommended!), with a three week break over December/January. To do the maths on that, it means that actual class time for any given topic (broad topic, such as Modern Self Defence) is 25 minutes x 49 classes, which is about 20 hours a year. If you take that to a single topic (ground defence, for example), that comes down to less than an hour a year if the topic isn't covered more than once, which it frequently isn't. As a result, it's important that I cover the highest probability aspects for the students in the Modern section, and the highest-return/benefit aspects in the less-practical sections of Weaponry and Traditional.

This is one of the realities of a generalist system, unfortunately, and why I tell my guys that home training is vital. Class time just isn't enough. 

So with this restriction on time availablity to dedicate to a particular skill-set, the most important thing is that I don't waste time with training that is low-percentage, in terms of applicability, as well as in terms of what they will most likely come up against, should it ever get to a real encounter. And, very simply, the odds of the attacker being a trained, skilled grappler are minimalist compared to a less-skilled, but highly committed thug/street predator/drunken fool. So to train against skilled, trained attacks can honestly be wasting their time.

What is more likely to be encountered is a sudden rush-tackle, or similar, rather than a skilled double-leg take down. Now, although they are similar, there are key differences that mean that training against the skilled version does not necessarily transfer across. I'll cover the differences in a second.



stevebjj said:


> IMO, if self defense is the goal and you're training specifically to avoid takedowns and to be able to get back up once on the ground, you need to be periodically pressure testing these techniques against legitimate grapplers. I'd also add that judoka, jiu-jitiero and wrestlers will share techniques but will approach combat differently, so periodically working with experienced grapplers in multiple disciplines would be important, too.


 
If self defence is indeed the goal, then the first thing that is needed is a clear unfiltered understanding of what that means. And what it means is to understand what the realities of your environment, what forms violence that may be encountered are present, what the laws in the environment are, having an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on yourself, and just as importantly, on your opponent/s), understanding the psychology, and so on. And, honestly, that rules out the idea of training to defeat or win against a trained person, whether BJJ, Judo, Wrestler, or whatever, mainly because the odds of having that kind of person attack are simply not very high. But let's look at the differences.

A skilled attacker will, surprising, use skill. By that I mean they will have proper, strong grips, they will use a great degree of leverage, they will remain balanced, they will come in for specific movements/techniques. An unskilled "thug", to use that term to cover the vast majority of attacks and attackers, will rarely go for a proper grip, will use a barrowing momentum (a la a football/rugby tackle) rather than leverage, won't have specific techniques in mind, will not be balanced, and so on. What spoils a skilled takedown (from a Judoka, for instance) won't necessarily spoil that of a rush-tackle, and vice versa. 

As a result, training with skilled experienced grapplers can get you good (or at least comfortable) against skilled experienced grapplers... but that's not why we train. We train for a street thug, who gets upset, shoves you hard in the chest, and dives in with a sudden rush tackle, ending with you both on the ground, whether by design or just as a result of the momentum. Typically, it's a control from them, and a way to ensure you don't go anywhere, or a way simply to avoid letting you hit them (a defensive action to stop themselves getting hurt). So it's a committed action, but the reasons for it are rather different to the reasons for an experienced grappler to attack, and as a result the actions are different as well.

When it comes to what we class as fast, realistic attacks, it is exactly what I said above. 110% committed to an action, sudden dive for a tackle, and so on. If you miss your strikes on their way in, you're going to get collected by the tackle, no two ways about it. And if that happens, you're probably going to go to the ground. But that type of attacker won't suddenly turn into a great ground fighter, they'll typically just start trying to hit you. Lots. So our ground work then centres on wearing/handling the incoming blows, and moving from there.



stevebjj said:


> For the record, I'm not saying you have to train and become an expert in these systems. I'm saying that any techniques you are working on would need, at some point, to be trained against credible grapplers... not guys in your own gym who are faking it.


 
For the record, I've done my time in BJJ, as have our other seniors (in BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, and so forth, depending on the person), each time bringing aspects back, such as better mechanics, escapes, and so forth. So I've got a bit of experience with these systems, however something that has not been brought back was the attacking methods of these systems, as it goes against what we train for. Oh, and I ensure the attacks are realistic myself, if my guys aren't attacking properly, then it's demonstrated for them. Properly. As well, obviously, as any flaws in what they're doing. So the attacks need to be serious, they need to be realistic, they need to be committed, but they do not need to be skilled experienced grapplers if that is not what is likely to be encountered.

Did that make more sense to you?


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 8, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> If you take that to a single topic (ground defence, for example), that comes down to less than an hour a year if the topic isn't covered more than once, which it frequently isn't.


 
Sounds like you spread yourselves awfully thin. It also fits with what I`ve seen of Bujinkan demonstrations, a lot of different stuff is done (defense with a cane, throwing swords to each other, gun disarms etc) but not much of is seems well practiced (except ukemi). Not to critizise but how is one hour of ground defence in a year going to help?


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 8, 2010)

Hey Cirdan,

Yeah, I know how it sounds there. And honestly, as I said, that's one of the issues with a generalist system, a specialist will always take apart a generalist if it stays in the specialist's area of choice for the very reasons that they spend more time there, are far more comfortable, more experienced, more skilled, and so on. Of course, the issue for them is that their choices are limited. Neither approach is perfect, but both can be trained in a way that are highly effective and productive, and certain methods will suit one person more than another.

In terms of spreading ourselves thin, the way we minimise the issues that that can bring in by training the basic principles over and over again, with everything dove-tailing into each other. For example, our knife work and knife defence are basically the same, and the principles for that are taken into other weapon use, defence, and so on. So while the application changes (this month is ground defence, last month was knife survival, before that was what we call Fight Science, which is an application of our strategies and tactics against common assault types, including our defences against takedowns, and so on) the basic principles remain constant. The other aspect that remains constant is that we train the basics for probably 90%+ of the time. We then hold Special Workshops which are intensive classes on a single topic throughout the year, allowing the students to get a deeper approach to a subject.

Oh, and for clarification, we aren't Bujinkan, even though we were the original Bujinkan schools in Australia. We left about 10 years ago.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Whatever is available and doesn't injure you. Say you get taken down, but manage to establish a closed guard. From there, you start hitting, your opponent will do one of two things, try to get distance (which is when you try to escape), or cover up (which is when you try to escape). From my experience, unless you have an insane amount of striking power (we're talking Igor Vovchanchyn levels of power here), you're not going to do a lot of damage on your back. But what you can do, is constant harassing strikes, palm heels/slaps to the ears, temple, top of head, base of the skull, etc, elbows to the top of the head, etc. I'm not trying to hit hard, I'm not gonna KO my opponent with arm strikes, maybe with up kicks, but not arm strikes. My goal is to get them thinking about all those smacks on the head instead of pounding on me or holding me down. Then escape.
> 
> What I've found works best for me when I'm on my back was to pull their head down with my left hand and get on my left hip (kind of sliding out from under them so I'm kind of on my left side) while my right hand palm heels/slaps to the head, along with short elbows. I want a machine gun style attack on them to get them to cover up. Back of the head for SD, top/side for MMA.
> 
> YMMV.


 
Sounds good to me!  I'm at work right now, and youtube is on the 'naughty list' but there is a clip out there with Rich Dimitri, thats worth posting in this thread. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: I found the clip.

[yt]EAwDADUwb0[/yt]


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

Supra Vijai said:


> Skpotamus, I'd agree with the pulling them close aspect of it. In fact the timing of this thread is brilliant - something we were talking about in class last night - as we are currently studying ground defence/escapes. We got made very aware of the importance of bringing your opponent in close to control/staying close to them if/when you manage to "reverse" positions.
> 
> When training it with situational context though, without giving too much away, we train with the mindset that you are jarred for a second after being taken down which lets them rear up and start raining down hits, at this point, we don't focus so much on striking them as jamming their strikes and finding an opening to clinch them close and restrict their movements before countering. In that context, for myself sides of the head and body seem a lot more natural and powerful. But as you said, everyone would have their own styles/preferences that come through and I guess that's what MA/SD should be about - doing what works for you in order to "win" or survive respectively


I don't know, guys.  Just to be up front, I don't train specifically for self defense.  I train for fitness and fun.  But it would seem to me that, unless a weapon is involved, pulling a grappler in tight is a bad idea all the way around.  We train that literally every single class.  While there are exceptions to every rule, in general, the guy on top is trying to eliminate space while the guy on the bottom is trying to create space.  If I can create space to work sweeps or submissions on guys who have been training BJJ for 3+ years, I'm pretty confident that your attempts to control space will come up a little short.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that you guys train BJJ, wrestling, judo or sambo.  I'm just saying that if you haven't actually worked these techniques out on competent grapplers, you really have no idea if they'll work in a pinch.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> First off, our classes are very much reflective of our "generalist" philosophy expressed in our system. To that end the class is split into three primary sections, being Traditional Unarmed Combat (techniques/drills taken from the various classical schools we train), Weaponry (most commonly traditional again, but can be modern, such as baton, knife, knife and pistol defence, and so on), and Modern Self Defence (which covers a large range of concepts and topics... realistically, you would need to be with us for at least two years to go through everything at least once). These classes are 1 1/2 hours long (due to restraint on the availability of the rooms hired), which means that each section is between 20 and 25 minutes, including instruction/explanation/demonstration. Add to that the fact that the classes are held once a week (in two locations, should the students want more class-time... highly recommended!), with a three week break over December/January. To do the maths on that, it means that actual class time for any given topic (broad topic, such as Modern Self Defence) is 25 minutes x 49 classes, which is about 20 hours a year. If you take that to a single topic (ground defence, for example), that comes down to less than an hour a year if the topic isn't covered more than once, which it frequently isn't. As a result, it's important that I cover the highest probability aspects for the students in the Modern section, and the highest-return/benefit aspects in the less-practical sections of Weaponry and Traditional.
> 
> This is one of the realities of a generalist system, unfortunately, and why I tell my guys that home training is vital. Class time just isn't enough.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Chris,

Great points as always.  Question for you.  Having had similar discussions with other MAists, I've had some people say that while the majority of attackers will probably be of the untrained category, they prefer to train against the skilled attacker.  I'm assuming reason being that its better to be over than under prepared.  

I have a few take down defenses in Kenpo.  Probably pretty effective against the average Joe, but against someone really trained in a grappling based art, I'll probably land on my rear, unless I make some changes....changes that I'll probably only get from working with a grappler.  I feel confident enough with the move, but I'd like to supercharge it up a bit.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey, Steve,
> 
> In essence, I agree with you completely. However in the specifics I disagree. It may help if I clarify what I mean when I talk about realistic attacks, to the degree that this medium allows, so I'll try that.
> 
> ...


Excellent.  Sometimes, what appears to be common sense to me isn't seen that way by others. 


> Yep, seen the same thing. So let's see if I can get across what I'm talking about, and where my understanding comes from.
> 
> First off, our classes are very much reflective of our "generalist" philosophy expressed in our system. To that end the class is split into three primary sections, being Traditional Unarmed Combat (techniques/drills taken from the various classical schools we train), Weaponry (most commonly traditional again, but can be modern, such as baton, knife, knife and pistol defence, and so on), and Modern Self Defence (which covers a large range of concepts and topics... realistically, you would need to be with us for at least two years to go through everything at least once). These classes are 1 1/2 hours long (due to restraint on the availability of the rooms hired), which means that each section is between 20 and 25 minutes, including instruction/explanation/demonstration. Add to that the fact that the classes are held once a week (in two locations, should the students want more class-time... highly recommended!), with a three week break over December/January. To do the maths on that, it means that actual class time for any given topic (broad topic, such as Modern Self Defence) is 25 minutes x 49 classes, which is about 20 hours a year. If you take that to a single topic (ground defence, for example), that comes down to less than an hour a year if the topic isn't covered more than once, which it frequently isn't. As a result, it's important that I cover the highest probability aspects for the students in the Modern section, and the highest-return/benefit aspects in the less-practical sections of Weaponry and Traditional.
> 
> ...


This has come up in other threads and may be a cultural difference.  Wrestling is very common in America and I'd say that the odds of someone having some wrestling training from school is pretty good here.  While they may not be former collegiate All-American wrestlers, the chances of a drunk thug having had some experience wrestling is better than even.  That may not be the case in Europe or Australia.  

Add to this that judo is actually gaining traction in schools, too, and you've got a lot of kids exposed to grappling early.  I know that our local high schools have judo clubs and we've had several teenagers join my BJJ school with 2 or 3 years of judo under their belts.  





> If self defence is indeed the goal, then the first thing that is needed is a clear unfiltered understanding of what that means. And what it means is to understand what the realities of your environment, what forms violence that may be encountered are present, what the laws in the environment are, having an understanding of the effects of adrenaline (on yourself, and just as importantly, on your opponent/s), understanding the psychology, and so on. And, honestly, that rules out the idea of training to defeat or win against a trained person, whether BJJ, Judo, Wrestler, or whatever, mainly because the odds of having that kind of person attack are simply not very high. But let's look at the differences.
> 
> A skilled attacker will, surprising, use skill. By that I mean they will have proper, strong grips, they will use a great degree of leverage, they will remain balanced, they will come in for specific movements/techniques. An unskilled "thug", to use that term to cover the vast majority of attacks and attackers, will rarely go for a proper grip, will use a barrowing momentum (a la a football/rugby tackle) rather than leverage, won't have specific techniques in mind, will not be balanced, and so on. What spoils a skilled takedown (from a Judoka, for instance) won't necessarily spoil that of a rush-tackle, and vice versa.
> 
> ...


I'll cede the point since you train for self defense and I don't, but I will say that it doesn't make sense to me.  After training against competent grapplers, controlling someone without any experience is simple.  Training to defend against wrestlers will only make defending oneself from an untrained bull rush easier, not harder.  


> For the record, I've done my time in BJJ, as have our other seniors (in BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, and so forth, depending on the person), each time bringing aspects back, such as better mechanics, escapes, and so forth. So I've got a bit of experience with these systems, however something that has not been brought back was the attacking methods of these systems, as it goes against what we train for. Oh, and I ensure the attacks are realistic myself, if my guys aren't attacking properly, then it's demonstrated for them. Properly. As well, obviously, as any flaws in what they're doing. So the attacks need to be serious, they need to be realistic, they need to be committed, but they do not need to be skilled experienced grapplers if that is not what is likely to be encountered.
> 
> Did that make more sense to you?


I don't know how much time you've spent training BJJ, but I'm glad to hear it.  I want to be clear, though, that I'm not suggesting that you train BJJ or wrestling, attack like a luchador or anything like that.  What I'm saying is that, periodically, it seems like it would be a good idea to pressure test *your *techniques against competent grapplers as opposed to working them out against your own guys who may or may not be able to replicate a "realistic" attack.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 8, 2010)

I know this is serious conversation but ever since I saw the title 

How Do You Avoid The Ground? 

I have had to restrain from posting this 







sorry...I'll go now


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Excellent. Sometimes, what appears to be common sense to me isn't seen that way by others. This has come up in other threads and may be a cultural difference. Wrestling is very common in America and I'd say that the odds of someone having some wrestling training from school is pretty good here. While they may not be former collegiate All-American wrestlers, the chances of a drunk thug having had some experience wrestling is better than even. That may not be the case in Europe or Australia.
> 
> Add to this that judo is actually gaining traction in schools, too, and you've got a lot of kids exposed to grappling early. I know that our local high schools have judo clubs and we've had several teenagers join my BJJ school with 2 or 3 years of judo under their belts. I'll cede the point since you train for self defense and I don't, but I will say that it doesn't make sense to me. After training against competent grapplers, controlling someone without any experience is simple. Training to defend against wrestlers will only make defending oneself from an untrained bull rush easier, not harder.
> I don't know how much time you've spent training BJJ, but I'm glad to hear it. I want to be clear, though, that I'm not suggesting that you train BJJ or wrestling, attack like a luchador or anything like that. What I'm saying is that, periodically, it seems like it would be a good idea to pressure test *your *techniques against competent grapplers as opposed to working them out against your own guys who may or may not be able to replicate a "realistic" attack.


 
Thus probably the #1 reason why I personally, like to work with other arts.  And to add to this....a friend of mine who is a BJJ Brown belt, has his own school, teaches a BJJ class, 1 night a week, at one of the local Universities.  This goes back a few years now, but I recall one night when I was there, there were a handful of guys from the Wrestling team that showed up to take the class.  Great bunch of guys, but they outweighed me and were stronger.  More times than not, I found myself on the bottom.  They were all new to BJJ, and again, while I'm no expert, I've done enough that I was able to survive, despite being on the bottom.  All they were basically doing was holding me down, mainly due to the fact that they didn't know any subs.  Lucky for me, I was able to hold my own, work some escapes, get myself to a better position and submit them.  

The moral of that story was simply to emphasize what you were saying about it being possible that the average Joe, having some grappling background.  Haven't seen much Judo taught in schools, but Wrestling is taught in alot of the larger high schools/Colleges, and there're MMA clubs all over the place.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

MJS said:


> The moral of that story was simply to emphasize what you were saying about it being possible that the average Joe, having some grappling background.  Haven't seen much Judo taught in schools, but Wrestling is taught in alot of the larger high schools/Colleges, and there're MMA clubs all over the place.


Wrestling is available in most middle schools and high schools throughout the country.  It's pervasive in the States (as you know).  Judo might be a local thing, but I was pleased to see it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004473072_judoside15.html


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 8, 2010)

MJS said:


> Usually any time the ground is mentioned, someone tends to bring up the 'stats' of all fights or a high percentage (90%-95%) of them go to the ground.
> 
> This thread isn't intended to debate the stats, but instead to talk about what each of you personally do, to avoid going to the ground.  In theory, yes, its easy to say, "I"ll never be taken down!!!" but in reality, its possible that we may trip, etc and the need to be able to survive will be there.
> 
> So, what do you do to avoid being taken down?  Do you crosstrain in a grappling based art?  Do you use strikes, and footwork to avoid the clinch? etc.



You ask what each of us does personally to avoid going to the ground so that makes this a personal preference issue.  I practice a lot and try to vary what I training on/in so that, hopefully, I can be prepared for most of the situations that may arise.  Cross-Training is part of it but, for me personally, I focus on what has worked for me in the past which in this case is kind of a EPAK/LE Defensive Tactics kind of fusion.  This wont work for anyone but me as "I" use it.

If there was any advice I could give on this subject it would be to train realistically (as is possible) and often, and stay flexible to any given situation.

My .02 only.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 8, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know, guys. Just to be up front, I don't train specifically for self defense. I train for fitness and fun. But it would seem to me that, unless a weapon is involved, pulling a grappler in tight is a bad idea all the way around. We train that literally every single class. While there are exceptions to every rule, in general, the guy on top is trying to eliminate space while the guy on the bottom is trying to create space. If I can create space to work sweeps or submissions on guys who have been training BJJ for 3+ years, I'm pretty confident that your attempts to control space will come up a little short.
> 
> Once again, I'm not suggesting that you guys train BJJ, wrestling, judo or sambo. I'm just saying that if you haven't actually worked these techniques out on competent grapplers, you really have no idea if they'll work in a pinch.


 
Steve is spot on here.  In order to have effective grapping skills you need to work with grapplers.  Whether it is wrestling, bjj, sambo, etc.  You need to practice your skill sets against someone that knows what they are doing! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  This goes with all Martial Sciences in that in order to be able to do them you need to learn the skills first hand from someone that knows what they are doing!


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 8, 2010)

Hi Steve,

As you mentioned, different approaches to training would probably be a big influence on how you react. From the sounds of it, in a sport aspect, you want to create space so you can move from there. With us, we bring them in close just long enough to restrict them from being able to hit you so we can move away. Also, we don't train submissions or chokes on the ground, we train to get up, get back to our feet where we are most comfortable and move from there. To liberally quote something from our class on Tuesday night "There is no such thing as a fair fight for us". Experienced wrestlers going for submissions etc are most likely trained in a mat environment with rules, referees etc and respond to things like tap outs - on an unconscious level. With the current "climate" in Australia relating to the street predator, wrestling in school is not common at all so the majority of street predators are relying on strength in numbers or sheer intimidation and brute strength. In neither of those situations would *we* want to be staying too long on the ground rolling around on broken glass or asphalt etc. I emphasize the we because that's just our approach and not going to suit everyone.

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for the BJJ guys etc. Their fitness is unbelievable as is their technique. For example a friend of a friend of mine (for real) has won several titles and accolades in the Australian junior BJJ competitions for his weight class. He grappled my friend who is a fellow ninjutsu practitioner and got him to submit in about 6 seconds - my friend was already on the ground, had just finished grappling with someone else and then this person jumped in for fun. The chances of this guy getting into a street brawl though as a street predator are minimal to none and that's the mindset we go with in class especially given time constraints as mentioned earlier. Training at home however... now that's fun


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 8, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know, guys. Just to be up front, I don't train specifically for self defense. I train for fitness and fun. But it would seem to me that, unless a weapon is involved, pulling a grappler in tight is a bad idea all the way around. We train that literally every single class. While there are exceptions to every rule, in general, the guy on top is trying to eliminate space while the guy on the bottom is trying to create space. If I can create space to work sweeps or submissions on guys who have been training BJJ for 3+ years, I'm pretty confident that your attempts to control space will come up a little short.
> 
> Once again, I'm not suggesting that you guys train BJJ, wrestling, judo or sambo. I'm just saying that if you haven't actually worked these techniques out on competent grapplers, you really have no idea if they'll work in a pinch.


 
You're looking at it from a BJJ standpoint, which is cool.  No punches being thrown though.  From a MMA standpoint, you have two ranges you can survive at using the guard.  Very tight, and very far.  Very close = the in tight I was talking about, very far = open guard usign yoru legs to keep them at bay.  To quote Mario Sperry, "Anything in between is bull****"".  Letting them get distance in your guard is going to open up those big punches that we see end fights in every UFC.  

If you have the guard, you're trying to stop your opponent from establishing posture, off balance them, and then sweep, submit or escape.  If the guy is working submissions or a pass, they're going to try to posture up to get space to escape.   Getting them close does prevent that, it's a simple break down of their posture.  Will it work forever?  Hell no.  It does give you time to spas out with the strikes to the head and create room for you to escape though.  Allowing the guy in your guard to get space on their terms is inviting a pass or leg lock.  Creating space yourself allows you to submit, sweep or escape.  It is a bit harder to create distance inside the guard if you're getting pounded on.  At least, it did with me and my opponents in NHB, YMMV.  

Now, if you dont' have a good BJJ background, and you find someone taking you down, getting mma posture (head down, hands on biceps, elbows on the ground), you're pretty well screwed anyways.  What you see more often in my area at least, is wrestlers that do a ground and pound on people in parking lots.  Preventing them from getting distance allows you to stop their strikes, get some of your own in, access a tool, prevent them from accessing a weapon, etc.  

Again, YMMV


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

Supra Vijai said:


> Hi Steve,
> 
> As you mentioned, different approaches to training would probably be a big influence on how you react. From the sounds of it, in a sport aspect, you want to create space so you can move from there. With us, we bring them in close just long enough to restrict them from being able to hit you so we can move away. Also, we don't train submissions or chokes on the ground, we train to get up, get back to our feet where we are most comfortable and move from there. To liberally quote something from our class on Tuesday night "There is no such thing as a fair fight for us". Experienced wrestlers going for submissions etc are most likely trained in a mat environment with rules, referees etc and respond to things like tap outs - on an unconscious level. With the current "climate" in Australia relating to the street predator, wrestling in school is not common at all so the majority of street predators are relying on strength in numbers or sheer intimidation and brute strength. In neither of those situations would *we* want to be staying too long on the ground rolling around on broken glass or asphalt etc. I emphasize the we because that's just our approach and not going to suit everyone.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for the BJJ guys etc. Their fitness is unbelievable as is their technique. For example a friend of a friend of mine (for real) has won several titles and accolades in the Australian junior BJJ competitions for his weight class. He grappled my friend who is a fellow ninjutsu practitioner and got him to submit in about 6 seconds - my friend was already on the ground, had just finished grappling with someone else and then this person jumped in for fun. The chances of this guy getting into a street brawl though as a street predator are minimal to none and that's the mindset we go with in class especially given time constraints as mentioned earlier. Training at home however... now that's fun





Skpotamus said:


> You're looking at it from a BJJ standpoint, which is cool.  No punches being thrown though.  From a MMA standpoint, you have two ranges you can survive at using the guard.  Very tight, and very far.  Very close = the in tight I was talking about, very far = open guard usign yoru legs to keep them at bay.  To quote Mario Sperry, "Anything in between is bull****"".  Letting them get distance in your guard is going to open up those big punches that we see end fights in every UFC.
> 
> If you have the guard, you're trying to stop your opponent from establishing posture, off balance them, and then sweep, submit or escape.  If the guy is working submissions or a pass, they're going to try to posture up to get space to escape.   Getting them close does prevent that, it's a simple break down of their posture.  Will it work forever?  Hell no.  It does give you time to spas out with the strikes to the head and create room for you to escape though.  Allowing the guy in your guard to get space on their terms is inviting a pass or leg lock.  Creating space yourself allows you to submit, sweep or escape.  It is a bit harder to create distance inside the guard if you're getting pounded on.  At least, it did with me and my opponents in NHB, YMMV.
> 
> ...


Hey guys.  As you say, your mileage may vary, but based on my experience, if you're keeping a guy in tight, you're stalling.  In MMA, BJJ or anything else, if the guy on the bottom is actively trying to keep a guy tight to him, he's not doing anything constructive.  In order to hold me down, he's using both arms and both legs.  If not, I'm going to have room to do damage.  He's tied himself up and I have two arms, two fists and a head with which to work.  Unless he has a shiv or an ice pick, he's not doing any damage.  He's not working for a submission.  He has no leverage for a punch and he's certainly not able to work for a sweep.  He's only postponing the inevitable.  If your goal is to get back up, keeping him tight is only going to hinder you.  

Watch any grappling, whether it's MMA, a street fight or the BJJ Mundials and you'll see that in order to do anything, you have to have some space to work.  The better you are, the less space you need.  The better you are, the less space you allow on top. 

MMA is a little misleading because, unless you're fighting in board shorts, you aren't likely to have the lack of friction to help you slide out of tight spots.  There are things that you can do in an MMA fight that you can't anywhere else, because both fighters are slick from sweat.  The principles of space are the same, but the application are different due to the lack of friction.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 8, 2010)

Yeah it's very difficult to explain our processes/methodologies in words without actually showing you how - I'm sure you'd be welcome to come watch/try a class 

We seem to be derailing the thread a bit though so I'm going to bow out and say.. "let's agree to disagree?"

Best of luck with your training and I hope we come across each other's posts again, the back and forth has been fun


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 8, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Hey guys. As you say, your mileage may vary, but based on my experience, if you're keeping a guy in tight, you're stalling. In MMA, BJJ or anything else, if the guy on the bottom is actively trying to keep a guy tight to him, he's not doing anything constructive. In order to hold me down, he's using both arms and both legs. If not, I'm going to have room to do damage. He's tied himself up and I have two arms, two fists and a head with which to work. Unless he has a shiv or an ice pick, he's not doing any damage. He's not working for a submission. He has no leverage for a punch and he's certainly not able to work for a sweep. He's only postponing the inevitable. If your goal is to get back up, keeping him tight is only going to hinder you.
> 
> Watch any grappling, whether it's MMA, a street fight or the BJJ Mundials and you'll see that in order to do anything, you have to have some space to work. The better you are, the less space you need. The better you are, the less space you allow on top.
> 
> MMA is a little misleading because, unless you're fighting in board shorts, you aren't likely to have the lack of friction to help you slide out of tight spots. There are things that you can do in an MMA fight that you can't anywhere else, because both fighters are slick from sweat. The principles of space are the same, but the application are different due to the lack of friction.


 
I think we're pretty much saying the same things, just differently and it's getting lost in cyber translation.  
As you say, groundfighting is a game of space.  Controlling the space is what's important.  Whether that means creating space to escape, sweep or submit.  Or pulling them in tight to deny them the space they want and try to create the space you want.  

My position, is that in MMA or a streetfight, you need to either keep them ultra close and tight so you can stop them from posturing up and throwing bombs down on you.  In MMA, you can still work for subs from in tight, such as a kimura, some chokes, get the arm position you want for the armbar, etc.  A good groundfighter is going to try to control the hips to stop the guy on bottom from doing any of that and fight to a position where they can pass or strike effectively.  

In a streetfight, my experience has been that people tend to try to keep their feet on the ground and stand up to punch or stomp.  This creates a massive amount of space around your hips for you to escape, sweep, or submit.  While pulling their head down, you prevent their strikes, but maintain the ability to get your hips out.  Controlling the space.  

Now, your position is that with your BJJ experience, I wouldn't be able to do that.  You're probably right.  Without the same level of skill/experience, I'm not going to be able to control you on the ground beyond stalling for a few minutes.  Hopefully, the distracting strikes will let me create that space rapidly and escape.  On you, it probably wouldn't, but on some Tapout wearing douche outside a frat house one night, it probably will.  

I know I'm not doing a good job of explaining my point, so I'll kind of point out where I got the stance from.  Watch the old Mario Sperry Vale Tudo tapes, and the Nogueira guard book.  Kind of an old school approach, but it was how I was taught and seems to work pretty well for me and my students.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Great points as always. Question for you. Having had similar discussions with other MAists, I've had some people say that while the majority of attackers will probably be of the untrained category, they prefer to train against the skilled attacker. I'm assuming reason being that its better to be over than under prepared.
> 
> I have a few take down defenses in Kenpo. Probably pretty effective against the average Joe, but against someone really trained in a grappling based art, I'll probably land on my rear, unless I make some changes....changes that I'll probably only get from working with a grappler. I feel confident enough with the move, but I'd like to supercharge it up a bit.


 
Hey Mike,

While I agree again in principle, again the details are different. When it comes to being over- or under-prepared, that isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being prepared for the higher likelihood, not the highest skill-set. So we are over-prepared, in that we are aiming to be prepared for as many eventualities as possible (ground escape, avoiding the ground, close-quater brawling, groups, weapon defence, pre-emptive striking, and more). But each subject has to be relevant to potential realities. Again, someone "really trained in a grappling based art" is not likely to be the attacker faced.

Training the mechanics of a trained system, or against it, is that you train to expect the actions of the trained system. That has the same issues as any formalised system, really, in that you are training for (and against) the types of things you will simply never encounter (outside of training or competition if that is included). And my job is to prepare my guys for the higher probability.

If you train in karate, for instance, do you expect that an attacker will attack with Mawashi Geri and a traditional Oi Zuki punch in a modern assault? No, I hope not. And if the defences are geared towards those attacks, then they won't necessarily work against more modern assaults (hooking haymaker punches, for example). So you need to train for what you will encounter. And, really, that is the aim we are going for.



stevebjj said:


> Excellent. Sometimes, what appears to be common sense to me isn't seen that way by others. This has come up in other threads and may be a cultural difference. Wrestling is very common in America and I'd say that the odds of someone having some wrestling training from school is pretty good here. While they may not be former collegiate All-American wrestlers, the chances of a drunk thug having had some experience wrestling is better than even. That may not be the case in Europe or Australia.
> 
> Add to this that judo is actually gaining traction in schools, too, and you've got a lot of kids exposed to grappling early. I know that our local high schools have judo clubs and we've had several teenagers join my BJJ school with 2 or 3 years of judo under their belts. I'll cede the point since you train for self defense and I don't, but I will say that it doesn't make sense to me. After training against competent grapplers, controlling someone without any experience is simple. Training to defend against wrestlers will only make defending oneself from an untrained bull rush easier, not harder.
> I don't know how much time you've spent training BJJ, but I'm glad to hear it. I want to be clear, though, that I'm not suggesting that you train BJJ or wrestling, attack like a luchador or anything like that. What I'm saying is that, periodically, it seems like it would be a good idea to pressure test *your *techniques against competent grapplers as opposed to working them out against your own guys who may or may not be able to replicate a "realistic" attack.


 
Hey Steve,

Yeah, cultural issues raise their ugly head again.... wrestling and other forms of grappling don't have any presence in our school system, the most exposure that most have here is things like the UFC, so they know to take someone to the ground (as UFC is the most realester thing there is....), but not how to, and it comes out as a rush tackle.

In regard to pressure testing against competant grapplers, that's already been done. I need my guys to be able to attack properly as well (even in an "unskilled" way) in order for the techniques to be trained properly every time. And again, if they don't give a satisfactorily "realistic" attack, then I tend to step in... that happened a number of times when we went against knives last month, for instance. Woke a few of them up... that was fun....


----------



## Supra Vijai (Dec 9, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> ... that was fun....


 
That's one way of putting it. Terrifying also comes to mind...


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> While I agree again in principle, again the details are different. When it comes to being over- or under-prepared, that isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being prepared for the higher likelihood, not the highest skill-set. So we are over-prepared, in that we are aiming to be prepared for as many eventualities as possible (ground escape, avoiding the ground, close-quater brawling, groups, weapon defence, pre-emptive striking, and more). But each subject has to be relevant to potential realities. Again, someone "really trained in a grappling based art" is not likely to be the attacker faced.
> 
> ...


 
Points taken, and I do agree, as I too, have said that chances are, I probably wont be facing Royce Gracies evil twin. LOL.  For myself, I just like to expand on certain areas.  Thats one of the reasons I like BJJ and Arnis....it helps me to expand my Kenpo, especially in the ground and weapon areas.


----------

