# BJJ for the Street. Does it work?



## FightHACKS (Jul 18, 2017)

Hey guys! I Nancy is a BJJ Blue Belt, she's 5'0" and 102lbs. A couple of weeks ago, she found herself in a road rage incident where another larger female followed her in to the gym parking lot exited her car and "rushed" Nancy. Here she talks about using her training to subdue her attacker and some of what was running through her mind. 
People often question the validity of BJJ for self defense for different reasons, the most common being the "multiple attacker" scenario. However, I think the scenario that Nancy found herself in is probably more likely for most people than being attacked by a gang of knife wielding thugs. 
Anyway, hope this helps some people that maybe are on the fence about training BJJ. If it worked for Nancy, It can work for you!

FH


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 18, 2017)

Agreed, completely.  

Even in a single person engagement, going to the ground voluntarily is dangerous, and any BJJ/GJJ instructor who actually knows fighting will tell you that.  However, knowing what you are doing on the ground is your best chance of getting up rapidly, of controlling the fight if you are taken there against your will, or of taking the fight there and controlling it if it is the prudent decision in that situation.  Even in a multiple attacker scenario, what is better?  

Knowing what you are doing on the ground
Not knowing what you are doing on the ground
The answer is pretty obvious, though sadly, there are still those who ignore it or even deny it.  

Thanks for sharing the video.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> People often question the validity of BJJ for self defense for different reasons, the most common being the "multiple attacker" scenario.


They do?  What is it, 1998?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2017)

people seem to challenge the,sd use of every art
, karate, to vertical, bjj to horizontal, aikido to twirly, gung fu, to wing chunny


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> They do?  What is it, 1998?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



One wonders, but I have seen multiple threads here where that comes up.  Heck there was an entire thread dedicated to the subject not that long ago.  I still also hear it regularly in conversation.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 18, 2017)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154894284742607
			




Works on concrete, not just mats.  LOL


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

lklawson said:


> They do?  What is it, 1998?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah aparently you can get sucker punched while on the ground by multiple oponants.






Oh. Wait................


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah aparently you can get sucker punched while on the ground by multiple oponants.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay.   But was that self defense?  I'm really confused.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> Okay.   But was that self defense?  I'm really confused.



It depends on the color of his shirt and what the weather is like at the time.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?

It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?
> 
> It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.



Choke him unconscious or just knee ride him until he promises to stop.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Choke him unconscious or just knee ride him until he promises to stop.



 That's seems silly to me. Choking someone unconscious is always dangerous--especially if the person you choke out has a heart condition and dies. (This has happened in martial arts events, btw.) And about kneeing someone "until the promise to stop," what are you talking about, exactly? I thought we were talking about self-defense, where the goal is to immobilize the threat enough to flee.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154894284742607
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This video demonstrates the fatal flaw of grappling in real fights. You must choose between injuring your opponent versus simply letting him go and thus risk a surprise counterattack. The BJJ man chooses to release him each time, leaving the opponent annoyed and ready for more fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's seems silly to me. Choking someone unconscious is always dangerous--especially if the person you choke out has a heart condition and dies. (This has happened in martial arts events, btw.) And about kneeing someone "until the promise to stop," what are you talking about, exactly? I thought we were talking about self-defense, where the goal is to immobilize the threat enough to flee.



Well if they have promised to stop you can flee at a much more sensible rate.

Otherwise there is risk in a fight. You can't completely control everything.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well if they have promised to stop you can flee at a much more sensible rate.
> 
> Otherwise there is risk in a fight. You can't completely control everything.



Self-defense and fighting are totally different things. If you're at the ATM and a guy decides to attack you, why in the hell would you willingly take it the ground if striking will suffice? The problem with BJJ guys is they want to take it immediately to ground--which is fine in the safety of the ring, but foolish in real life.

Lol. If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that? Knock him on his *** with a a simple o-soto-gari and run. No need to get tangled with the guy. (And if he's like most muggers, he's probably got a knife or something in his pocket. More reason not to willingly go straight to grappling.)


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Self-defense and fighting are totally different things. If you're at the ATM and a guy decides to attack you, why in the hell would you willingly take it the ground if striking will suffice? The problem with BJJ guys is they want to take it immediately to ground--which is fine in the safety of the ring, but foolish in real life.
> 
> Lol. If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that? Knock him on his *** with a a simple o-soto-gari and run. No need to get tangled with the guy. (And if he's like most muggers, he's probably got a knife or something in his pocket. More reason not to willingly go straight to grappling.)


And if you throw a guy to the ground on concrete the fights as good as over...


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's seems silly to me. Choking someone unconscious is always dangerous--especially if the person you choke out has a heart condition and dies. (This has happened in martial arts events, btw.) And about kneeing someone "until the promise to stop," what are you talking about, exactly? I thought we were talking about self-defense, where the goal is to immobilize the threat enough to flee.


That's there problem if they choose to attack you


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Self-defense and fighting are totally different things. If you're at the ATM and a guy decides to attack you, why in the hell would you willingly take it the ground if striking will suffice? The problem with BJJ guys is they want to take it immediately to ground--which is fine in the safety of the ring, but foolish in real life.
> 
> Lol. If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that? Knock him on his *** with a a simple o-soto-gari and run. No need to get tangled with the guy. (And if he's like most muggers, he's probably got a knife or something in his pocket. More reason not to willingly go straight to grappling.)



Osotogari is grappling.

Anyway hitting people in the street is as dangerous as choking them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Osotogari is grappling.
> 
> Anyway hitting people in the street is as dangerous as choking them.



Especially if you hit them WITH the street...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?
> 
> It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.



First, so what if you do injure your opponent?  Assuming of course your opponent has attacked you first.  You should not continue attacks yourself if your attacker stops, but while you opponent is attacking you, he deserves whatever he gets imho.

Second, you evidently don't know much about grappling.  you can control an attacker by causing pain that doesn't cause actual injury such as dislocating a joint breaking a bone.



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's seems silly to me. Choking someone unconscious is always dangerous--especially if the person you choke out has a heart condition and dies. (This has happened in martial arts events, btw.) And about kneeing someone "until the promise to stop," what are you talking about, exactly? I thought we were talking about self-defense, where the goal is to immobilize the threat enough to flee.



What else do you call self defense?  I would prefer an opponent flee.  Disengage when the threat goes away, yes, leave the area without increasing the threat to me if possible, yes.  Render an attacker incapable of continuing to attack because the technique I used in self defense injured him?  Mine is a defensive art, we normally only defend when attacked.  But when attacked we defend and what happens to the attacker is on him.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's seems silly to me. Choking someone unconscious is always dangerous



Striking someone is always dangerous.



> --especially if the person you choke out has a heart condition and dies.



Especially if the person you strike hits the ground and dies of a brain bleed.



> (This has happened in martial arts events, btw.)



(This has happened in martial arts events, btw.)



> I thought we were talking about self-defense, where the goal is to immobilize the threat enough to flee.



Not necessarily. Sometimes the goal is to immobilize and flee. Sometimes it's to break bones and flee. Sometimes it's to kill the assailant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?
> 
> It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.


That's not a flaw in grappling, it's just a thing that is. You can't stop someone with strikes without injuring them, either (unless they just give up, which would also apply to grappling, handguns, etc.).


----------



## lklawson (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?


Because punching, kicking, smacking with a stick, or stabbing with a sharp/pointy is non-injurious?  <cough>


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Osotogari is grappling.
> 
> Anyway hitting people in the street is as dangerous as choking them.


I'd add that osoto gari is probably as likely to cause serious injury (head to the pavement) on an unskilled (at falls) opponent as anything else is.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Self-defense and fighting are totally different things.


Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.  Both "self defense" and "fighting" are highly contextual and definitions vary wildly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Self-defense and fighting are totally different things. If you're at the ATM and a guy decides to attack you, why in the hell would you willingly take it the ground if striking will suffice? The problem with BJJ guys is they want to take it immediately to ground--which is fine in the safety of the ring, but foolish in real life.
> 
> Lol. If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that? Knock him on his *** with a a simple o-soto-gari and run. No need to get tangled with the guy. (And if he's like most muggers, he's probably got a knife or something in his pocket. More reason not to willingly go straight to grappling.)


Actually, I'll argue the BJJ side of this. I'm not a BJJ guy (a smattering of experience with it), but I think they get too much **** about this.

First, most BJJ guys I know would avoid going to the ground if they have a better (for them) option. And they're pretty good at avoiding going to the ground. They're also really good at getting up off the ground if they end up there.

Second, there are times when moving to the ground (not pulling guard, but subduing the other guy to the ground - think side control, etc.) makes good sense. What I teach is primarily standing grappling, secondarily striking. We have enough ground work to be competent if we end up there, and that's about it. Except that we do train pins and controls for keeping the other guy down there once we put them down, for those situations where running isn't our immediate best option. I'd be willing to bet money a strong BJJ blue belt is as good at keeping most people on the ground (once they are there) as I am.


----------



## wab25 (Oct 3, 2017)

Lots of people ask which art is best for self defense. The answer is simple, the best art for self defense is the art you are most willing to train regularly. Wab25SuperFu may be the ultimate art, able to defeat all other arts in seconds... but if you are not willing to train regularly, it won't help you at all. If people will train bjj or tkd or aikido regularly, then that is the art that will be most effective for them. Your art may vary.

The argument that grappling, leads to a point where you have to release the other guy or injure him has some holes in it as well. People training grappling arts can train getting back up after the tap. There are ways to maintain your lock, or move to another lock, allowing you to get up, while the other guy is still locked up and or pinned. This of coarse must be practiced. We practice "exiting with control." Exiting with control can be practiced in all arts, and applies to striking arts as well. You wouldn't knock a guy down with a kick, then turn your back on him would you?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

wab25 said:


> Wab25SuperFu may be the ultimate art, able to defeat all other arts in seconds...


And just as a matter of record, "Nuh-uh!"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?
> 
> It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.


In a serious fight, you have a few different options for ending the fight:

You can render your opponent unconscious with a strike or choke. This can potentially have lethal consequences, however a properly applied choke from a trained practitioner is more controlled and is less likely to produce long term consequences than a knockout from impact.

You can cause sufficient structural injury to disable your opponent and make him unable to continue fighting. Whether you do this with strikes or grappling techniques, your opponent is still injured.

You can cause sufficient pain and discomfort so as to cause your opponent to give up and stop fighting. Whether you do this with striking or grappling, there is always the possibility for your opponent to change his mind and attack you again as soon as you stop fighting.

You can stun or distract your opponent long enough for you to flee the encounter. This can be done with either striking or grappling, but there is always the risk that your assailant will pursue you.

You can restrain your opponent until help arrives or your opponent calms down and decides to stop fighting. (There is always the risk that help will not arrive or your opponent will change his mind and start fighting again, but sometimes it's the best tactic.) This option is only available via grappling.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd add that osoto gari is probably as likely to cause serious injury (head to the pavement) on an unskilled (at falls) opponent as anything else is.



Yeah. If you have a good collar tie then you have at least control where their head goes. It was the sort of thing I had to pay a bit of attention to.

I saw a video once of a guy who just randomly duplexed this reporter who did not even seem hurt. I still have no idea how he did that.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Osotogari is grappling.
> 
> Anyway hitting people in the street is as dangerous as choking them.



O-soto-gari is a takedown that, if done well, knocks your opponent to the ground while you remain on your feet. It's the better choice, in my opinion.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> First, so what if you do injure your opponent?  Assuming of course your opponent has attacked you first.  You should not continue attacks yourself if your attacker stops, but while you opponent is attacking you, he deserves whatever he gets imho.
> 
> Second, you evidently don't know much about grappling.  you can control an attacker by causing pain that doesn't cause actual injury such as dislocating a joint breaking a bone.
> 
> ...



I disagree about your attacker "deserving" a broken arm or a broken neck. It's foolish to go straight for a lethal technique when a less lethal will suffice.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> That's there problem if they choose to attack you



You and I must be cut from different moral cloths.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> O-soto-gari is a takedown that, if done well, knocks your opponent to the ground while you remain on your feet. It's the better choice, in my opinion.



Why? You achieve a null effect. You throw them down. They stand back up. You are back to 50/50.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Why? You achieve a null effect. You throw them down. They stand back up. You are back to 50/50.



Um, you're supposed to let your attacker fall in a real encounter. You perform o-soto-gari and let him freefall.

Also, it's performed following a strike or series of strikes. You can't just walk up and perform it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Um, you're supposed to let your attacker fall in a real encounter. You perform o-soto-gari and let him freefall.
> 
> Also, it's performed following a strike or series of strikes. You can't just walk up and perform it.



So he free falls on to the ground. What if he has a knife? He stands back up and stabs you. What if he has friends? They come along and punch you in the back of the head.

He is punching you as well. You have gone in done all this work to get a takedown and done nothing with it. That is OK for sport. But sounds terrible for self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> O-soto-gari is a takedown that, if done well, knocks your opponent to the ground while you remain on your feet. It's the better choice, in my opinion.


That doesn't change the fact that it is grappling.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So he free falls on to the ground. What if he has a knife? He stands back up and stabs you. What if he has friends? They come along and punch you in the back of the head.
> 
> He is punching you as well. You have gone in done all this work to get a takedown and done nothing with it. That is OK for sport. But sounds terrible for self-defense.



Think about all the times you had school fights in high school. Are you telling me you've never done o-soto-gari on someone outside of training? It's my experience that tossing someone at the ground has a way of scaring the fight from most.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't change the fact that it is grappling.



Maybe they teach o-soto-gari differenty in BJJ. In Japanese martial arts, this is o-soto-gari:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Maybe they teach o-soto-gari differenty in BJJ. In Japanese martial arts, this is o-soto-gari:



I dont think that is technically osotogari when you use the hip.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Maybe they teach o-soto-gari differenty in BJJ. In Japanese martial arts, this is o-soto-gari:


It's the same technique in Judo and in BJJ. It's grappling regardless.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Think about all the times you had school fights in high school. Are you telling me you've never done o-soto-gari on someone outside of training? It's my experience that tossing someone at the ground has a way of scaring the fight from most.



During a fight in an underage disco I threw a kid down a flight of stairs. He leaped straight back up ran a hundred meters and superman punched someone in the head.

Kids are spry.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 3, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's the same technique in Judo and in BJJ. It's grappling regardless.



Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling.


Really? In my 36 years of martial arts training, I've never seen throws classified as anything _but_ grappling. In fact, they make up one of the primary aspects of grappling. 

Out of curiosity, just what is your experience with martial arts?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's the same technique in Judo and in BJJ. It's grappling regardless.


Yep. Can't perform Osoto-gari without a grappling move. Have to grab the opponent and that is when it is a grapple. I also think the above video isn't a very good example of osoto-gari...should be a leg reap and not off the hip. At least the way I learned it, osoto-gari is a major leg reap maybe I'm misinformed.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 3, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.


Especially if one doesn't know how to grapple being on the ground is a bad place to be.


----------



## Tarrycat (Oct 4, 2017)

If someone attacks me, I WILL hurt them in the worst way possible (unless it's at gunpoint). It's self-defense. That's what most martial arts are for, it's for injuring the attacker. Whether he/she has a weak heart, doesn't matter, because how are you supposed to know that? I doubt you'll get into trouble for it... Well, here in SA you might, but that's a subject I won't discuss here. I will still defend myself in whichever way I can, whether I get into trouble or not. NO mercy for the wicked, is what I say.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

Tarrycat said:


> If someone attacks me, I WILL hurt them in the worst way possible (unless it's at gunpoint). It's self-defense. That's what most martial arts are for, it's for injuring the attacker. Whether he/she has a weak heart, doesn't matter, because how are you supposed to know that? I doubt you'll get into trouble for it... Well, here in SA you might, but that's a subject I won't discuss here. I will still defend myself in whichever way I can, whether I get into trouble or not. NO mercy for the wicked, is what I say.



Have you ever really crippled someone in a fight. To the point where you are wondering if you killed them?


----------



## marques (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Have you ever really crippled someone in a fight. To the point where you are wondering if you killed them?


Once I did a finger lock and the guy pretended the finger was broken. I paniqued for a moment, big trouble to come, but then reviewing what I did I was quite sure the finger was fine. And it was.

It was only a finger. I can't imagine something bigger.

People who really know how to hurt people must have self control and think 'only necessary damage' (which may be kill). Less (well) trained people can put everything they have with less risk.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.



In 45 years I've never seen throws classified as anything other than grappling. They're the very definition of grappling. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Maybe they teach o-soto-gari differenty in BJJ. In Japanese martial arts, this is o-soto-gari:


I’m not a BJJ guy. I learned osoto gari in Judo. Judo is grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.


In all my experience in martial arts, I’ve always heard them classified as grappling.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Why? You achieve a null effect. You throw them down. They stand back up. You are back to 50/50.


Maybe.  Most people have no clue how to protect their head when they fall.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Also, it's performed following a strike or series of strikes. You can't just walk up and perform it.


Sez you.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Maybe they teach o-soto-gari differenty in BJJ. In Japanese martial arts, this is o-soto-gari:


It is performed from a body-clash with a "grapple" grip so there's a case to be made that it can be considered grappling.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I dont think that is technically osotogari when you use the hip.


This is a vid of o soto gari.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I disagree about your attacker "deserving" a broken arm or a broken neck. It's foolish to go straight for a lethal technique when a less lethal will suffice.



You are free to disagree. 

You are also free to quote my posts and provide commentary, agreement, or disagreement.  But it isn't agreeable to try to assign words to me that I didn't say or intend.  I never said anything about a broken neck.  I never said I would want to go straight to a lethal technique when a less lethal technique would suffice.  Please refrain from doing that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> You and I must be cut from different moral cloths.



Probably need to add me to that. 

But it just seems strange; I will go way out of my way to avoid a fight.  But I run out of options if I am attacked.  I have to defend myself or suffer unknowable consequences.  Personally I prefer self defense.  Part of that is to ensure my opponent either doesn't want to attack me again, or is incapable of attacking me again.  If I keep simply avoiding an attack, or using techniques that simply stop my opponent, he will likely continue attacking.  With enough attempts, he may get lucky.  Why would I want that?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.



I never learned throwing when I studied TKD.  It may have been taught after 1st Dan, I don't know.  That was the highest ranking person we had at that time.

But that was taught early on in the Hapkido I studied.  I do agree that "rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and should be avoided if possible."
But I am not worried, that wasn't something I was taught in the Hapkido I studied, whether the opponent was a mugger or some other type of attacker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Probably need to add me to that.
> 
> But it just seems strange; I will go way out of my way to avoid a fight.  But I run out of options if I am attacked.  I have to defend myself or suffer unknowable consequences.  Personally I prefer self defense.  Part of that is to ensure my opponent either doesn't want to attack me again, or is incapable of attacking me again.  If I keep simply avoiding an attack, or using techniques that simply stop my opponent, he will likely continue attacking.  With enough attempts, he may get lucky.  Why would I want that?


Agreed. I'll avoid hurting him if I see a clear path to doing so. If I don't, I'll use what seems necessary to terminate the attack and make myself safe. If a simple takedown and pin seems likely to do the job, bully. If it doesn't, someone is likely to get hurt. Since I didn't choose this dangerous situation, I'd prefer any injuries incurred happen to the one who did.


----------



## Charlemagne (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, in all my experience with martial arts I've never seen throws classified as grappling. My point is that rolling on the ground with a mugger is a bad decision and it should be avoided if possible.



Please stop.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Maybe.  Most people have no clue how to protect their head when they fall.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Big ask that people dont have experience falling. A lot of endeavors involve falling over.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

Tarrycat said:


> If someone attacks me, I WILL hurt them in the worst way possible


Then you will go to jail, because the law does not give you that right.  It only allows you to do what is "reasonable" not to injure them in "the worst way possible".



Tarrycat said:


> It's self-defense.


No it isn't it's only SD if your actions are reasonable.  Anything more than that is assault, ABH/GBH attempted manslaughter, and any other mirriad of crimes/charges/labels that apply in your area.



Tarrycat said:


> That's what most martial arts are for, it's for injuring the attacker.


I'm pretty sure the purpose of the most MA these days is to test yourself in against competitor in competition/sport.  



Tarrycat said:


> Whether he/she has a weak heart, doesn't matter, because how are you supposed to know that?  I doubt you'll get into trouble for it.


You're not, and you shouldn't



Tarrycat said:


> I will still defend myself in whichever way I can


The law allows you to defend yourself, it to does not however give you free reign to do it "anyway you can".  You seem to think the only options are get attacked or get into trouble defending yourself.   They are not.  You can defend yourself and stay within the law.



Tarrycat said:


> NO mercy for the wicked, is what I say.


By choosing to "hurt them in the worst way possible" you become the wicked.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Self-defense and fighting are totally different things.





Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that?


Or you could just give him the £20 you withdrew because it's not worth getting stabbed over.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Why? You achieve a null effect.


Because of course it's impossible to run away when the other guy is on the floor. 



drop bear said:


> You throw them down. They stand back up. You are back to 50/50.


Because muggers like people who fight back don't they?  NO!!!!! Muggers want "victims" not people who fight back.

You continue to demonstrate your total and utter liability to underrated crime, and to distinguish between criminal violence/self defence, ad why people should refrain from commenting on topics they don't understand.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Then you will go to jail, because the law does not give you that right.  It only allows you to do what is "reasonable" not to injure them in "the worst way possible".
> 
> 
> No it isn't it's only SD if your actions are reasonable.  Anything more than that is assault, ABH/GBH attempted manslaughter, and any other mirriad of crimes/charges/labels that apply in your area.
> ...


To be fair, Tarrycat lives in South Africa (according to the user profile), not England as your profile indicates.  The laws there are, doubtless, not exactly the same as in England and they may be "interpreted" or applied in different ways than what you or I would expect in our locations.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Or you could just give him the £20 you withdrew because it's not worth getting stabbed over.


Kinda an assumption there.  It might be £200,000.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

lklawson said:


> To be fair, Tarrycat lives in South Africa (according to the user profile), not England as your profile indicates.  The laws there are, doubtless, not exactly the same as in England and they may be "interpreted" or applied in different ways than what you or I would expect in our locations.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Ofcourse, there will be some differences.  That is implied


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Kinda an assumption there.  It might be £200,000.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I'm pretty sure my balance has five zeros in it.  Unfortunately they are all at the front of the other numbers


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Because of course it's impossible to run away when the other guy is on the floor.
> 
> 
> Because muggers like people who fight back don't they?  NO!!!!! Muggers want "victims" not people who fight back.
> ...


Or, you know, not.

Here in the U.S. recently a pair of "muggers" perpetrated a "car jacking" (armed theft of the automobile).  When the victim wouldn't give up his car until he retrieved his 2-yo daughter from the back seat, one of the criminals then shot him in the head.

Police: 2 Brothers In Custody After Fairmount Man Is Gunned Down Protecting Daughter


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Ofcourse, there will be some differences.  That is implied


The point being that every country has laws which may or may not define "reasonable force" and, if so defined, may define it differently than the nations in which you or I life, and even if defined the same, may be interpreted or applied differently due to any number of reasons ranging from social norms to unequal application due to gender.

In short, the way Tarrycat's laws are written, interpreted, or applied to Tarrycat, may allow for Tarrycat to "hurt" them "in the worst way possible."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 12, 2017)

lklawson said:


> one of the criminals then shot him in the head.


Exactly, they dont want to fight you.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Exactly, they dont want to fight you.


The point being that fighting back doesn't necessarily serve as much of a deterrent to the criminal, in contradiction to the implication of your statement "Because muggers like people who fight back don't they? NO!!!!! Muggers want "victims" not people who fight back."

That said, if complying gets you murdered anyway, there's no point in complying and no additional risk in resisting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Because of course it's impossible to run away when the other guy is on the floor.
> 
> 
> Because muggers like people who fight back don't they?  NO!!!!! Muggers want "victims" not people who fight back.
> ...



I dont train for a best case scenario. My ultimate view is if I can deal with someone who is competent then the incompetent will take care of them selves. So I dont throw people and just leave them floating in the wind.

This is the primary issue with self defence anyone can be an expert and believe any old rubbish. I am pretty sure your advice of muggers came from batman by the way.






Now for a real situation from my experience anyway. If someone has a knife it is quite often that second beat where they will pull it out and stab you. So they get knocked down realise they can't win and go for an equaliser. If I have them under some sort of control I can prevent that from ever happening.

This pretty much has to happen from you being on top of them because if you are actually engaged with a guy on top of them using your weight as an advantage is the most advantageous position you can fight from.





Look if you are both standing then yeah disengage. Create space and run away. But that sould be your choice as much as possible not his.

So I think the stories are wrong and If I were you I wouldn't trust them.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 13, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Hey guys! I Nancy is a BJJ Blue Belt, she's 5'0" and 102lbs. A couple of weeks ago, she found herself in a road rage incident where another larger female followed her in to the gym parking lot exited her car and "rushed" Nancy. Here she talks about using her training to subdue her attacker and some of what was running through her mind.
> People often question the validity of BJJ for self defense for different reasons, the most common being the "multiple attacker" scenario. However, I think the scenario that Nancy found herself in is probably more likely for most people than being attacked by a gang of knife wielding thugs.
> Anyway, hope this helps some people that maybe are on the fence about training BJJ. If it worked for Nancy, It can work for you!
> 
> FH



First of all, I'm glad your student was able to defend herself in that situation and wasn't seriously injured. There are only 2 points I disagree with you on.

1) "No martial art will adequately prepare you for multiple attackers." I think systems that boast they can teach you to take on 4 guys or more are exaggerating and are trying to sell something. However; there are basic tactics and techniques someone can do from standing that someone can't do on the ground to deal with multiple attackers. For example, keeping one opponent between you and the other opponent, using your distance and footwork to not get flanked and if need be run away. These are three things someone on the ground can't do. I don't think BJJ is a bad system, but one of its weaknesses is its inability for even a highly skilled practitioner to engage just two attackers. Just a side note about the knife concept. If a stand up stylist is engaging someone and see them pull a knife they can put distance between them and the attacker, a BJJ practitioner lacks that option because of their position on the ground though. Considering knives are everyday carry for so many people, it's a valid point for people to bring up.  

2) "If you only have time to learn one discipline then BJJ is the right one". I disagree with this for one main reason. BJJ will compliment almost any other system, but it shouldn't be your sole style. Learning a stand up style either striking, grappling or a hybrid system first should take priority over learning a ground system first. The reason being is situational probability. Meaning, the average person will more frequently find themselves in a situation were they can punch, kick, elbow, knee, sweep or throw an opponent, opposed to finding a good environment to roll around on the ground with an opponent for a submission.


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 13, 2017)

FightHACKS said:


> Hey guys! I Nancy is a BJJ Blue Belt, she's 5'0" and 102lbs. A couple of weeks ago, she found herself in a road rage incident where another larger female followed her in to the gym parking lot exited her car and "rushed" Nancy. Here she talks about using her training to subdue her attacker and some of what was running through her mind.
> People often question the validity of BJJ for self defense for different reasons, the most common being the "multiple attacker" scenario. However, I think the scenario that Nancy found herself in is probably more likely for most people than being attacked by a gang of knife wielding thugs.
> Anyway, hope this helps some people that maybe are on the fence about training BJJ. If it worked for Nancy, It can work for you!
> 
> FH


Yeah but just because it worked for her doesn't mean it'll work for eveyrwhere else. Every situation is different using one example to prove a point is meaningless


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Anarax said:


> First of all, I'm glad your student was able to defend herself in that situation and wasn't seriously injured. There are only 2 points I disagree with you on.
> 
> 1) "No martial art will adequately prepare you for multiple attackers." I think systems that boast they can teach you to take on 4 guys or more are exaggerating and are trying to sell something. However; there are basic tactics and techniques someone can do from standing that someone can't do on the ground to deal with multiple attackers. For example, keeping one opponent between you and the other opponent, using your distance and footwork to not get flanked and if need be run away. These are three things someone on the ground can't do. I don't think BJJ is a bad system, but one of its weaknesses is its inability for even a highly skilled practitioner to engage just two attackers. Just a side note about the knife concept. If a stand up stylist is engaging someone and see them pull a knife they can put distance between them and the attacker, a BJJ practitioner lacks that option because of their position on the ground though. Considering knives are everyday carry for so many people, it's a valid point for people to bring up.
> 
> 2) "If you only have time to learn one discipline then BJJ is the right one". I disagree with this for one main reason. BJJ will compliment almost any other system, but it shouldn't be your sole style. Learning a stand up style either striking, grappling or a hybrid system first should take priority over learning a ground system first. The reason being is situational probability. Meaning, the average person will more frequently find themselves in a situation were they can punch, kick, elbow, knee, sweep or throw an opponent, opposed to finding a good environment to roll around on the ground with an opponent for a submission.


I'm not a BJJ guy, so this is not coming from a position of defending my art (I have a smattering of exposure to BJJ).

1) To that last part about knives - BJJ actually has a strength here (to go with the weakness you noted). If a BJJ guy is on the ground and sees a knife, he's going to be up (or in control while down) much faster than I am from down there. I agree I'd rather be standing, but let's not miss the advantage BJJ does have.

2) I don't think BJJ is significantly weaker than other arts as a starting point. Someone studying a striking-only style will have a weakness around being taken down and what to do once down. BJJ (if they are studying the stand-up work, too), will be pretty limited in defending strikes from standing, but will be capable of getting inside those from most people, to put them on the ground (without necessarily going with them).


----------



## Anarax (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not a BJJ guy, so this is not coming from a position of defending my art (I have a smattering of exposure to BJJ).
> 
> 1) To that last part about knives - BJJ actually has a strength here (to go with the weakness you noted). If a BJJ guy is on the ground and sees a knife, he's going to be up (or in control while down) much faster than I am from down there. I agree I'd rather be standing, but let's not miss the advantage BJJ does have.
> 
> 2) I don't think BJJ is significantly weaker than other arts as a starting point. Someone studying a striking-only style will have a weakness around being taken down and what to do once down. BJJ (if they are studying the stand-up work, too), will be pretty limited in defending strikes from standing, but will be capable of getting inside those from most people, to put them on the ground (without necessarily going with them).



Knife defense on the ground is a horrible situation to be in regardless of style. I can only base what I know off my experiences, and we never studied knife defense in either of the BJJ schools I attended. When your opponent has a knife on the ground everything changes. Techniques must be altered and control of the limb takes precedence. I know this from Kali, given my BJJ schools didn't cover this.

The BJJ instructor said if you only have time to study one discipline then BJJ is the right one. I disagree with BJJ being your only style, but not necessarily your first. I think cross training BJJ with other styles is a great idea, but not a sole style. I look at BJJ like pressure points systems, it's good to know and can compliment almost any style. However; I want something that can be used in more situations as my foundation.

BJJ teaches takedowns, but the submissions are on the ground. If you get a single or double leg and just stand back up, most likely your opponent will do the same. The idea is getting your opponent to the ground to execute the submission, thus you can't just take them down to end the confrontation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Knife defense on the ground is a horrible situation to be in regardless of style. I can only base what I know off my experiences, and we never studied knife defense in either of the BJJ schools I attended. When your opponent has a knife on the ground everything changes. Techniques must be altered and control of the limb takes precedence. I know this from Kali, given my BJJ schools didn't cover this.


True, and I don't think most BJJ schools do much direct knife defense. However, controlling the knife arm is more instinctive than not doing so, and BJJ folks are pretty good at controlling arms - it's key in a significant portion of the little BJJ I know.



> The BJJ instructor said if you only have time to study one discipline then BJJ is the right one. I disagree with BJJ being your only style, but not necessarily your first. I think cross training BJJ with other styles is a great idea, but not a sole style. I look at BJJ like pressure points systems, it's good to know and can compliment almost any style. However; I want something that can be used in more situations as my foundation.


My point about first systems is that they are our only system, until we get a second one. I think BJJ is as utilitarian as most (and moreso than some). Arts that cover a much wider swath (like my primary art) will be more likely to have some weak points in all of them (I'm not as good at standing grappling as an equivalent Judo player, not as good on the ground as an equivalent BJJ-er, and not as good on striking as an equivalent Karateka). Dedicated styles have bigger gaps, and bigger strengths.



> BJJ teaches takedowns, but the submissions are on the ground. If you get a single or double leg and just stand back up, most likely your opponent will do the same. The idea is getting your opponent to the ground to execute the submission, thus you can't just take them down to end the confrontation.


They only get back up if you don't put them down hard, and don't keep them down. Even a single-leg (and certainly a double-leg) can be done harshly, to make it more likely they'll take a bad fall. And there are few methods of restraint that don't require putting someone on the ground and working on them from there. Of course, I'd rather use something that would let me disengage quickly, but the more detached I get, the easier it is for them to escape. And there are plenty of systems that lack any reasonable method of restraint, and must depend upon their ability to beat somebody into stopping.

My point in brief: there's always a trade-off. BJJ's trade-off isn't an awful one, even if it's all you have.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> True, and I don't think most BJJ schools do much direct knife defense. However, controlling the knife arm is more instinctive than not doing so, and BJJ folks are pretty good at controlling arms - it's key in a significant portion of the little BJJ I know.
> 
> 
> My point about first systems is that they are our only system, until we get a second one. I think BJJ is as utilitarian as most (and moreso than some). Arts that cover a much wider swath (like my primary art) will be more likely to have some weak points in all of them (I'm not as good at standing grappling as an equivalent Judo player, not as good on the ground as an equivalent BJJ-er, and not as good on striking as an equivalent Karateka). Dedicated styles have bigger gaps, and bigger strengths.
> ...



I agree that when an art is more specialized it will inherently have bigger gaps than more general styles. However; wouldn't you want to have to start with a more general style and gradually shrink your gaps than vice versa? For example, karate isn't only striking, it has sweeps and anti-grappling techniques as well. The average karate guy isn't going to win any grappling competitions, but he should be able to defend himself against grabs and takedowns on the street. 

I think Judo is a better art to start with than BJJ, given judokas do both stand up(throws, sweeps, takedowns) and groundwork. BJJ stemmed from Judo, but the founders wanted to focus on groundwork, thus making it a specialized system.

I think it just comes down to your training approach. I prefer to start with a general style that covers more areas than a specialized style which only focuses on a few small areas of combat, or train both at the same time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I agree that when an art is more specialized it will inherently have bigger gaps than more general styles. However; wouldn't you want to have to start with a more general style and gradually shrink your gaps than vice versa?


I would, but I'm not sure my way is significantly better than starting with something with specific strengths and filling the gaps later.



> For example, karate isn't only striking, it has sweeps and anti-grappling techniques as well. The average karate guy isn't going to win any grappling competitions, but he should be able to defend himself against grabs and takedowns on the street.


That's highly variable. I've had experienced Karateka and Taekwondo-ists come into my program and into classes where I was a student, and not be able to deal with fairly simple grip fighting (I tend to grab an extended guard arm to make room in sparring). I haven't tried taking them down early on, but I've yet to meet someone without grappling experience who wasn't relatively easy to get inside on and get to some sort of takedown, if I could get past their striking. In other words, if their striking failed to keep me away, they didn't have a good answer once I got attached.



> I think Judo is a better art to start with than BJJ, given judokas do both stand up(throws, sweeps, takedowns) and groundwork. BJJ stemmed from Judo, but the founders wanted to focus on groundwork, thus making it a specialized system.


I agree with that.



> I think it just comes down to your training approach. I prefer to start with a general style that covers more areas than a specialized style which only focuses on a few small areas of combat, or train both at the same time.


I tend to agree with that, too.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2017)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=693030514205112


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 16, 2017)

drop bear said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=693030514205112


Love the reading material at the end. How considerate!


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2017)

Judo, BJJ, sambo, catch wrestling.  I’d say any of these are a great first art.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 16, 2017)

Steve said:


> Judo, BJJ, sambo, catch wrestling.  I’d say any of these are a great first art.



Yeah before you can street. You really should be able to fight first.


----------



## CoachRonald (Jun 30, 2018)

FightHACKS said:


> Hey guys! I Nancy is a BJJ Blue Belt, she's 5'0" and 102lbs. A couple of weeks ago, she found herself in a road rage incident where another larger female followed her in to the gym parking lot exited her car and "rushed" Nancy. Here she talks about using her training to subdue her attacker and some of what was running through her mind.
> People often question the validity of BJJ for self defense for different reasons, the most common being the "multiple attacker" scenario. However, I think the scenario that Nancy found herself in is probably more likely for most people than being attacked by a gang of knife wielding thugs.
> Anyway, hope this helps some people that maybe are on the fence about training BJJ. If it worked for Nancy, It can work for you!
> 
> FH



*Strategic-tactical optimization in hand-to-hand combat: the mastery of grappling as a determining factor in encounters*






Publishers Panel


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 1, 2018)

CoachRonald said:


> *Strategic-tactical optimization in hand-to-hand combat: the mastery of grappling as a determining factor in encounters*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there a point to that video? Most of it isn't in English, and the parts that were seemed to be headlines, rather than information.


----------



## CoachRonald (Jul 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Is there a point to that video? Most of it isn't in English, and the parts that were seemed to be headlines, rather than information.



Hi Gpseymour,

Yes,  there is a connection between the video and the article. The video shows some paradoxes and data that better explain the thesis of the article and its data. Indeed it's in Portuguese,  but these statements are so short  that quickly can be translated.

Regards


----------



## FriedRice (Jul 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=693030514205112



A lot of people always complains why dudes in street fight vids like to take off their shirts.


----------

