# How would you compare the grappling arts on their ability to escape the ground game?



## skribs

Typically, when people look at a grappling art, they're looking at how well you can win the fight once you're on the ground.  Maybe your main sport is the grappling art, in which case the submission or pin is how you get the win.  Or you train the art to train your ground game, in which case once it goes down you want the submission.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's primary is striking, and if I go down I'd like to create space and get back to my feet (or vice versa).

My thoughts on this are that wrestling, judo, and BJJ all have different advantages towards this.  I took wrestling 20 years ago, and I remember training escapes.  BJJ I know seeks to control space, i.e. by creating space and filling it.  Do the concepts apply to creating space and then using that space?  Or what about Judo.  I hear they tend to be more explosive, where BJJ tends to be more methodical.

If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?


----------



## drop bear

You look at the wrestling arts that score advantages to standing back up. Which is why folk wrestling is considered such a good fit for mma.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

skribs said:


> If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?


Can a prostitute be virgin?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your question is like "Can a prostitute be virgin?"



Wow I could have taken that to a very dark place.

Anyway. This is the sort of thing you are looking for.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This guy has no desire to escape the ground game.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Wow I could have taken that to a very dark place.
> 
> Anyway. This is the sort of thing you are looking for.



It is.  I'm wondering how it compares to BJJ, Judo, or any other primary grappling art.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> It is.  I'm wondering how it compares to BJJ, Judo, or any other primary grappling art.



Kabib.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## drop bear

If you have a close look at what they are doing .  Unless they get completely merked with a throw by the time they have landed they are almost back on their feet.






What you are looking for technically is the fight for hands and knees position called turtle and from turtle to standing.

Bjj will instead fight for guard and then fight of their back.






As a side note. There is an idea that to enhance the concept of grappling and standing that you throw the guy and stay standing yourself.

But if you were dealing with anyone any good they will behave like that first video, stand back up and you will have basically wasted your time.


----------



## Buka

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can a prostitute be virgin?



Yes. Yes they can.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> If you have a close look at what they are doing .  Unless they get completely merked with a throw by the time they have landed they are almost back on their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are looking for technically is the fight for hands and knees position called turtle and from turtle to standing.
> 
> Bjj will instead fight for guard and then fight of their back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note. There is an idea that to enhance the concept of grappling and standing that you throw the guy and stay standing yourself.
> 
> But if you were dealing with anyone any good they will behave like that first video, stand back up and you will have basically wasted your time.



The idea is if I've been thrown or taken down.

In Hapkido the idea is to do what you said - throw them and remain standing.  Or I'd simply try and break the grip and create space if I could (throwing is one way of creating that space).

But the ground game in hapkido isn't as well developed as in Wrestling or BJJ.  The video you shows is a pretty good description of the two.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Typically, when people look at a grappling art, they're looking at how well you can win the fight once you're on the ground.  Maybe your main sport is the grappling art, in which case the submission or pin is how you get the win.  Or you train the art to train your ground game, in which case once it goes down you want the submission.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's primary is striking, and if I go down I'd like to create space and get back to my feet (or vice versa).
> 
> My thoughts on this are that wrestling, judo, and BJJ all have different advantages towards this.  I took wrestling 20 years ago, and I remember training escapes.  BJJ I know seeks to control space, i.e. by creating space and filling it.  Do the concepts apply to creating space and then using that space?  Or what about Judo.  I hear they tend to be more explosive, where BJJ tends to be more methodical.
> 
> If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?


I’d put BJJ ahead of Judo in that area. In some situations, I’d put NGA on similar footing with BJJ, but only a few. In most situations beyond the knee, it’s more limited than Judo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can a prostitute be virgin?


What, precisely, has that to do with the question, John?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> The idea is if I've been thrown or taken down.
> 
> In Hapkido the idea is to do what you said - throw them and remain standing.  Or I'd simply try and break the grip and create space if I could (throwing is one way of creating that space).
> 
> But the ground game in hapkido isn't as well developed as in Wrestling or BJJ.  The video you shows is a pretty good description of the two.


From what I’ve seen, the Hapkido approach is similar to what’s usually taught in NGA. It’s not that tough to teach uke to hold on when he can as a reversal, which causes nage to have to follow the throw. Which also naturally leads to ground control (“Major Tom, do you read me?”).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> What, precisely, has that to do with the question, John?


If the ground is your favor battle field, why do you want to get back up?


----------



## skribs

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the ground is your favor battle field, why do you want to get back up?



The ground is not my favored battlefield.  If I train ground fighting I want to train to get back to my favored battlefield.


----------



## Gweilo

Whats wrong with create or find the space, then fill it, be it on the ground, or upright?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Whats wrong with create or find the space, then fill it, be it on the ground, or upright?



Not sure what you mean


----------



## Gweilo

Op first post, stated if going to ground, he likes to create space, so he can get to his feet or vice a versa(nothing wrong with that), and that bjj created space then fills the space (nothing wrong with that), its a stratergy that works well on the ground and in an upright stance, so why not use that, Hapkido is strongest technique wise in the upright position, so as groundwork is by his own admission a weak or unfavoured pisition, change it, he knows the theories of circular movement, he also knows the theories of non resistance, I think it was skribs (appologies if was not) stated in another post he has thought about creating a new art, so whats wrong with create space, fill space and intergrating it with some of the Hapkido theories and techniques to improve the groundwork, I for one would be inrerested in his findings, as its something I have been toying with, blending some of the techniques from prevoius arts (bujinkan, Hapkido) to the movement principles of Systema (not creating a new art per say just adapting my style), having talked about this in my Hapkido days (groundwork not a strong point of the art) and not experiencing proper grappling wrestling techniques until I started Systema, it is something I have experimented with for a while, and I think its better to adapt oneself rather than start another art.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Op first post, stated if going to ground, he likes to create space, so he can get to his feet or vice a versa(nothing wrong with that), and that bjj created space then fills the space (nothing wrong with that), its a stratergy that works well on the ground and in an upright stance, so why not use that, Hapkido is strongest technique wise in the upright position, so as groundwork is by his own admission a weak or unfavoured pisition, change it, he knows the theories of circular movement, he also knows the theories of non resistance, I think it was skribs (appologies if was not) stated in another post he has thought about creating a new art, so whats wrong with create space, fill space and intergrating it with some of the Hapkido theories and techniques to improve the groundwork, I for one would be inrerested in his findings, as its something I have been toying with, blending some of the techniques from prevoius arts (bujinkan, Hapkido) to the movement principles of Systema (not creating a new art per say just adapting my style), having talked about this in my Hapkido days (groundwork not a strong point of the art) and not experiencing proper grappling wrestling techniques until I started Systema, it is something I have experimented with for a while, and I think its better to adapt oneself rather than start another art.



Because he wouldn't receive the benefit of learning to do the thing he wants off guys who can do what he wants at an elite level.

And he could test this really quite easily because he could go to a wrestling school and see if he can hold a wrestler down. Then he could see if a wrestler could hold him down.

And look I haven't seen how that will pan out but if say he just gets straight up toyed with. Then the principles that they were using are probably the ones he would want to adopt regardless of stylistic preferences.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the ground is your favor battle field, why do you want to get back up?


Because sometimes our favorite way to fight isn’t a good choice for the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Gweilo said:


> Op first post, stated if going to ground, he likes to create space, so he can get to his feet or vice a versa(nothing wrong with that), and that bjj created space then fills the space (nothing wrong with that), its a stratergy that works well on the ground and in an upright stance, so why not use that, Hapkido is strongest technique wise in the upright position, so as groundwork is by his own admission a weak or unfavoured pisition, change it, he knows the theories of circular movement, he also knows the theories of non resistance, I think it was skribs (appologies if was not) stated in another post he has thought about creating a new art, so whats wrong with create space, fill space and intergrating it with some of the Hapkido theories and techniques to improve the groundwork, I for one would be inrerested in his findings, as its something I have been toying with, blending some of the techniques from prevoius arts (bujinkan, Hapkido) to the movement principles of Systema (not creating a new art per say just adapting my style), having talked about this in my Hapkido days (groundwork not a strong point of the art) and not experiencing proper grappling wrestling techniques until I started Systema, it is something I have experimented with for a while, and I think its better to adapt oneself rather than start another art.


In my experience, BJJ’s approach works well with the circular movement and principles. It doesn’t take much adaptation for BJJ movement to fit with an Aiki art to create a blended ground approach.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Combat sambo mixed with BJJ and maybe ringen.     And then you should probbly be set as its got a more eleborate ground game than judo has now days and has the same goals of putting someone onto the ground and submitting them.   

And Combat sambo is pretty much MMA with a few diffrences.    Unless you do it at a MMA school then its MMA.   

Pretty much any grappling will help you in this regard though.  ( have doubts about belt though, but thats probbly better than nothing espeically some places have a non belted version if they do belted)


----------



## Gweilo

You dont need to join an art to get access to top guys nowdays, 
Fir example Fedor Emelianenko does seminar andv5 day intensive training courses open to all on Sambo and his MMA style, and I would put money on hes not the only one.


----------



## Gweilo

Sorry forgot to quote DB s post


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> You dont need to join an art to get access to top guys nowdays,
> Fir example Fedor Emelianenko does seminar and 5 day intensive training courses open to all on Sambo and his MMA style, and I would put money on hes not the only one.



You do if you want to be any good.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> You do if you want to be any good.


In a sports way or a self defense way?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> In a sports way or a self defense way?



Why would there be a difference?

I mean you get good in pretty much the same way.


----------



## Gweilo

The difference being, for sport, you are going against a well trained opponent, someone you are very unlikely to meet in a self defense situation like a saturday evening, outside the bar, also in sport the leaining has a cealing that is covered by the rules of the governing body, in sport you are not going to be able to tap out of someone sinking their teeth into your face, or someone ramming their thumb through your eye ball, and you can tap all you want, when someones got hold of your knackers and trying to rip them off, yes this is extreme, you can train as hard as you like, kick and punch as many bags as you like, get as many colour belts as you like, but when you work to an imposed cealing, there are gaps and flaws, now I am not claiming I am perfect (far from) , but what do grapplers do when you face 2 or 3 adversaries?  How is that arm bar or Rnc going to help when his mate is kicking you in the face? Is that not the reason you call it mixed martial arts, you become good at many disciplines rather than a master of one, cover as many bases as you can, if you join bjj for example, say 5 years to become good, then take up for example Muay Thaii for 5 years, then what, another 5 years boxing maybe, IMO traing all 3 to a high level at the same time aint going to work either, far better to learn the basics of an art that help with your weakness, through intensive causes and blend that into what you are doing, spend more time on what works, rather than spending 5 years hard work, to never use 2/3 of it. Training in mma is great for fitness, and sport, yes there will be a lot that works in a self defense situation, but its not as superior as mma types beleive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Gweilo said:


> The difference being, for sport, you are going against a well trained opponent, someone you are very unlikely to meet in a self defense situation like a saturday evening, outside the bar, also in sport the leaining has a cealing that is covered by the rules of the governing body, in sport you are not going to be able to tap out of someone sinking their teeth into your face, or someone ramming their thumb through your eye ball, and you can tap all you want, when someones got hold of your knackers and trying to rip them off, yes this is extreme, you can train as hard as you like, kick and punch as many bags as you like, get as many colour belts as you like, but when you work to an imposed cealing, there are gaps and flaws, now I am not claiming I am perfect (far from) , but what do grapplers do when you face 2 or 3 adversaries?  How is that arm bar or Rnc going to help when his mate is kicking you in the face? Is that not the reason you call it mixed martial arts, you become good at many disciplines rather than a master of one, cover as many bases as you can, if you join bjj for example, say 5 years to become good, then take up for example Muay Thaii for 5 years, then what, another 5 years boxing maybe, IMO traing all 3 to a high level at the same time aint going to work either, far better to learn the basics of an art that help with your weakness, through intensive causes and blend that into what you are doing, spend more time on what works, rather than spending 5 years hard work, to never use 2/3 of it. Training in mma is great for fitness, and sport, yes there will be a lot that works in a self defense situation, but its not as superior as mma types beleive.


The intensity of their training - and working against people who have tested what they are using (even if you're not competing, yourself) - is the best part of the common MMA approach, IMO. A TMA school using those principles will usually develop better students than if they didn't.


----------



## joemoplata

If you are asking which grappling art is the best for defending yourself the answer is the same as asking which striking art is the best for self defense:  ALL OF THEM.  I have been doing BJJ for over 20 years at a gym that has national wrestlers that were Judo black belts before anything.   Doesn't mean I might not face a better wrestler than me so in that case I am super happy I have BJJ.  It's possible that I am fighting a better Judoka than me so I am super glad I know how to wrestle.  Maybe I got in a fight with a world champion BJJ player so I'm super glad that he probably has no wrestling or Judo so he won't be able to take me down at all.  

Oh, and 8 years or so of Muay Thai.  This idea that 1 style or art is better than another is archaic.  Train everything that you can with everyone that you can.


----------



## Gweilo

gpseymour said:


> The intensity of their training - and working against people who have tested what they are using (even if you're not competing, yourself) - is the best part of the common MMA approach, IMO. A TMA school using those principles will usually develop better students than if they didn't.


Please dont read malice in my last post, and I do not have a deep dislike of mma, I never stated not working hard, I am a beleiver of create a style that suits the individual, yes mma figthers work hard, yes they pressure test what they have learnt, they are good at what they do, I have already stated what they learn absolutley can help in a non sporting incident, but against one adversary, in a enviroment that has rules, one on one even outside of the ring or octagon, anyone taking on a competant mma fighter will need to have their wits about them, but what happens when they meet 2 or 3 people, or someone who does not play by rules. It reminds me of a story (cant remember where it came from) about a Greyhound dog, highly trained to run around in circles chasing a bit of felt that looks like a rabbit, after the greyhound is no longer profitable it gets rehomed with a family who retrain the greyhound, sit, stay, roll over, beg etc, out for a walk one day off the leash,  dog sees a cat, its gone, only comes back and starts behaving once its killed the cat.
Experts will say its instinct and the prey drive and its training chasing small fury things, moral of the tale, train hard, train well, but training for the one thing only, leads to a predictable routine, thats hard to train out.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Please dont read malice in my last post, and I do not have a deep dislike of mma, I never stated not working hard, I am a beleiver of create a style that suits the individual, yes mma figthers work hard, yes they pressure test what they have learnt, they are good at what they do, I have already stated what they learn absolutley can help in a non sporting incident, but against one adversary, in a enviroment that has rules, one on one even outside of the ring or octagon, anyone taking on a competant mma fighter will need to have their wits about them, but what happens when they meet 2 or 3 people, or someone who does not play by rules. It reminds me of a story (cant remember where it came from) about a Greyhound dog, highly trained to run around in circles chasing a bit of felt that looks like a rabbit, after the greyhound is no longer profitable it gets rehomed with a family who retrain the greyhound, sit, stay, roll over, beg etc, out for a walk one day off the leash,  dog sees a cat, its gone, only comes back and starts behaving once its killed the cat.
> Experts will say its instinct and the prey drive and its training chasing small fury things, moral of the tale, train hard, train well, but training for the one thing only, leads to a predictable routine, thats hard to train out.



So the moral of that story is a dog that is trained to chase a fake rabbit in a sport can catch and kill a real animal on the street?

Otherwise there is a whole thing about concept driven that I don't think you are getting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Gweilo said:


> Please dont read malice in my last post, and I do not have a deep dislike of mma, I never stated not working hard, I am a beleiver of create a style that suits the individual, yes mma figthers work hard, yes they pressure test what they have learnt, they are good at what they do, I have already stated what they learn absolutley can help in a non sporting incident, but against one adversary, in a enviroment that has rules, one on one even outside of the ring or octagon, anyone taking on a competant mma fighter will need to have their wits about them, but what happens when they meet 2 or 3 people, or someone who does not play by rules. It reminds me of a story (cant remember where it came from) about a Greyhound dog, highly trained to run around in circles chasing a bit of felt that looks like a rabbit, after the greyhound is no longer profitable it gets rehomed with a family who retrain the greyhound, sit, stay, roll over, beg etc, out for a walk one day off the leash,  dog sees a cat, its gone, only comes back and starts behaving once its killed the cat.
> Experts will say its instinct and the prey drive and its training chasing small fury things, moral of the tale, train hard, train well, but training for the one thing only, leads to a predictable routine, thats hard to train out.


Good points.

A couple of thoughts. Firstly, we're all in a bit of trouble if we run into multiple attackers who actually bother to coordinate, especially if more than one of them has any skill. Of course, if you've worked on strategies and tactics that actually help (not all multiple-attacker training does - some may be worse than not being trained), you're going to have an edge over not having that training. In that same situation, the same is true of fight training (including that some "fight training" doesn't really do what it claims). Best if both the fight training and multiple training are there. That combination can be had from MMA training, too.

Here's my second point: how well it translates depends how it's trained. I like to use BJJ as an example, because most folks are at least passingly familiar with the approach and the sporting rules involved. If someone trains BJJ explicitly and entirely for IBJJF competition, they're going to have gaps (including probably some habits that aren't a good idea for self-defense) that won't exist if they also train (in class or outside class) to explore non-sporting application. I know some folks at MMA gyms do this, and they're reasonably well prepared for self-defense.

I like a blended approach. I kinda wish I'd done a bit of competition along the way, but it never interested me. I got my competitive needs met in other sports. But I think the competition would have been beneficial - and probably fun - had I gotten around to it. But there are other ways to get that testing of your abilities. That testing, IMO, is a vital part of training. I think having it at least every other generation is essential to stopping crap from creeping into an art (though competition rules can also lead to the introduction of a different kind of crap).


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> So the moral of that story is a dog that is trained to chase a fake rabbit in a sport can catch and kill a real animal on the street?
> 
> Otherwise there is a whole thing about concept driven that I don't think you are getting.



No, its train in the same things over and over do help with muscle memory, but creates bad habits, that can make you predictable.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

gpseymour said:


> Because sometimes our favorite way to fight isn’t a good choice for the situation.


 
very well said


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> No, its train in the same things over and over do help with muscle memory, but creates bad habits, that can make you predictable.



In theory nobody in wrestling should ever throw someone with a double leg.

If you wanted to discuss how training would make you predictable. That would be the best example.

It is literally the first throw and the first defense everyone learns.

But elite guys still manage to use it successfully.


----------



## Gweilo

Mr Burrows obviously trains very hard, and has used a technique to his advantage, I think we could argue until we are blue in the face, but I will argue my point with (hope I spell her name correctly) Rhonnda Rousey, hell of an arm bar, but it was a technique she relied on too much, she reveted to what she knew she was good at, unfortunately it became predictable. I love watching mma, its great entertainment, finely tuned athletes, at the top of their GAME.
When the UFC first started in the 90's it was superb, but with the health and safety brigade, and the you cant do that crowd, it was changed, watered down, made more exceptable to the mainstream audience, the other side to the same coin is TKD and olympic TKD, it was adapted to make it more exciting, by encouraging engagement, the same will happen in Karate in the next olympics, hopefully we will see the true style v style, but even if we get that in its olympic debut, the rules will be changed, it will make karateka adapt, to make it more exciting to watch, then all of a sudden you get an ippon for a slap to the ear, and the whole olympic karate will become standardised. This is the problem for sports arts, you are dictated to by pressure from snowflake types, and PPV channel operators, it becomes purely entertainment, fighters become entertainers or actor/stuntmen types, everyone starts to beleive the hype, every one starts to be given names like larry the leg bar, and all this slowly filters down through to the every day gym, yes students become really fit (which is a good thing), yes they learn to grapple, they wear their tapout shorts to the local pool or beach or bar, put videos on youtube kicking the crap out of pads, or showing their gator grip technique, or claiming how mma is the only real true ma, every step in this chain of events is leading away from what mma was originally about, I am a mixed martial artist, but I dont do mma.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Mr Burrows obviously trains very hard, and has used a technique to his advantage, I think we could argue until we are blue in the face, but I will argue my point with (hope I spell her name correctly) Rhonnda Rousey, hell of an arm bar, but it was a technique she relied on too much, she reveted to what she knew she was good at, unfortunately it became predictable. I love watching mma, its great entertainment, finely tuned athletes, at the top of their GAME.
> When the UFC first started in the 90's it was superb, but with the health and safety brigade, and the you cant do that crowd, it was changed, watered down, made more exceptable to the mainstream audience, the other side to the same coin is TKD and olympic TKD, it was adapted to make it more exciting, by encouraging engagement, the same will happen in Karate in the next olympics, hopefully we will see the true style v style, but even if we get that in its olympic debut, the rules will be changed, it will make karateka adapt, to make it more exciting to watch, then all of a sudden you get an ippon for a slap to the ear, and the whole olympic karate will become standardised. This is the problem for sports arts, you are dictated to by pressure from snowflake types, and PPV channel operators, it becomes purely entertainment, fighters become entertainers or actor/stuntmen types, everyone starts to beleive the hype, every one starts to be given names like larry the leg bar, and all this slowly filters down through to the every day gym, yes students become really fit (which is a good thing), yes they learn to grapple, they wear their tapout shorts to the local pool or beach or bar, put videos on youtube kicking the crap out of pads, or showing their gator grip technique, or claiming how mma is the only real true ma, every step in this chain of events is leading away from what mma was originally about, I am a mixed martial artist, but I dont do mma.



Ok. I know guys who fought in the NHB days. And it doesn't work like you are trying to say it works. 

In MMA they are not pretending. They are legitimately trying to hurt you. If you let them they will legitimately hurt you until a ref pulls you apart. 

And the ref stops a fight when you can no longer defend yourself. At high level it gets stopped when you are done. Not when you are tired or unhappy or you think you have had enough. But when you look like you cannot physically fight anymore. 

These are really important pieces of information.

Because then when you fight bare knuckle no holds barred. It is not like the game really changes. You still fight until you can't fight. 

And if this was a self defense. You still fight until you can't fight. 

So say someone can effectively grapple and sits on top of you. You don't suddenly get up because the stakes change  you get up if you have the tool set to get up.


----------



## drop bear

Let's look at no holds barred. 

The same techniques do the same thing.


----------



## Gweilo

You mention NHB, I had a little exepience with unliscensed fighting, in the early 1990's, we didnt have pretty rings or referees though, kidney punches and eye gouging was aloud, as was pretty much anything else.
I understand in modern mma, your opponent is trying to hurt or finish you, or if you dont tap out someting is going to break, but my original comments were on the diffence between sport and self defense, in sport you have the referee, doctors at ringside and a set of rules, with these things in play, you train to a cealing, because of the safe guards, and because of these safe gaurds you do not train to defend a kidney punch, because its not aloud, you do not defend eye gouges because its not aloud, if you get a thumb in the eye its an accident per say, you train for sport, entertainment and money, should you reach an elite level.
Someone teained in mma is probaly going to destroy the bloke in the bar, on an inexoerienced person, the same can be saidmof any ma, apart from an aggresive fast attack, against a trained opponent, you chances will dwindle rapidly.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> You mention NHB, I had a little exepience with unliscensed fighting, in the early 1990's, we didnt have pretty rings or referees though, kidney punches and eye gouging was aloud, as was pretty much anything else.
> I understand in modern mma, your opponent is trying to hurt or finish you, or if you dont tap out someting is going to break, but my original comments were on the diffence between sport and self defense, in sport you have the referee, doctors at ringside and a set of rules, with these things in play, you train to a cealing, because of the safe guards, and because of these safe gaurds you do not train to defend a kidney punch, because its not aloud, you do not defend eye gouges because its not aloud, if you get a thumb in the eye its an accident per say, you train for sport, entertainment and money, should you reach an elite level.
> Someone teained in mma is probaly going to destroy the bloke in the bar, on an inexoerienced person, the same can be saidmof any ma, apart from an aggresive fast attack, against a trained opponent, you chances will dwindle rapidly.



How would training to defend a punch not be training to defend an eye gouge?

Even a kidney punch means they have managed to cut an angle you have never wanted them to cut in the first place. 

The referee doesn't win the fight for you. He just stops it when you loose. The point is even if the fight is to the death the probability of who will win doesn't change very much.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> You mention NHB, I had a little exepience with unliscensed fighting, in the early 1990's, we didnt have pretty rings or referees though, kidney punches and eye gouging was aloud, as was pretty much anything else.
> I understand in modern mma, your opponent is trying to hurt or finish you, or if you dont tap out someting is going to break, but my original comments were on the diffence between sport and self defense, in sport you have the referee, doctors at ringside and a set of rules, with these things in play, you train to a cealing, because of the safe guards, and because of these safe gaurds you do not train to defend a kidney punch, because its not aloud, you do not defend eye gouges because its not aloud, if you get a thumb in the eye its an accident per say, you train for sport, entertainment and money, should you reach an elite level.
> Someone teained in mma is probaly going to destroy the bloke in the bar, on an inexoerienced person, the same can be saidmof any ma, apart from an aggresive fast attack, against a trained opponent, you chances will dwindle rapidly.



What I advocate for self defense is mma plus. Not mma lite. 

Or in this case wrestling plus.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> The referee doesn't win the fight for you. He just stops it when you loose. The point is even if the fight is to the death the probability of who will win doesn't change very much.



No he does not, but he stops you from getting permanately hurt or killed, we have all seen those fights where a fighter gets hit and is KO'd, as the out fighter hits the deck, the other fighter wants to continue to pound, the ref jumps in and stops it, in some cases shoulder barges a fighter out the way. Whether you admit it or not, this is a safe guard, even if its only in the subconscious mind, unless you are suggesting mma fighters are omnipotent. 
In the UK at present 1v1 is 60% of street altercations, 34% of these 1v1 a weapon is used, 40% of street altercations involve more than 2 people (these altercations do not include crowd gatherings like organised violence at soccer matches etc, but do contain altercations of smaller groups, that may be related), there are no referees in these situations, whether mma people want to admit it or not, they are very good at fighting one person in a controlled enviroment, in the real world your odds or training is no better or worse than any other trained combatent, if you do not train in defense again multiple attackers and situational awarness, your chances diminish rapidly, if you tie an opponent up with grappling or wrestling in the real world chances are you are a sitting duck for another adversary. The key is movement and continual movement in the real word.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> No he does not, but he stops you from getting permanately hurt or killed, we have all seen those fights where a fighter gets hit and is KO'd, as the out fighter hits the deck, the other fighter wants to continue to pound, the ref jumps in and stops it,



There is nothing you can do if you are knocked out. There is no self defense solution to defending yourself after you get knocked out and rule one in sports is do everything you can to not get knocked out. 

So how does the ref jumping in change a tactic or a technique or a concept when it comes to self defense vs sport?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> if you do not train in defense again multiple attackers and situational awarness, your chances diminish rapidly, if you tie an opponent up with grappling or wrestling in the real world chances are you are a sitting duck for another adversary. The key is movement and continual movement in the real word.



And this is wrong as well. To make a case that someone's training is inconsistent in an area you have to make a case that there is training that is more consistent.

Ok. Here is what I mean. You don't train to fight elephants. If you fought an elephant you would probably die.

Luckily I do train to fight elephants and so am much more capable in self defense.

The problem is an elephant would kill either of us regardless. And I have never fought an elephant and so have no idea if my training or your training is better in that case.

If I dress up a person as an elephant it is also not really going to make my case.

So the comment that we train to fight multiple attackers has to come with a lot more evidence to be a credible statement.


And of course there is this.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> if you do not train in defense again multiple attackers and situational awarness, your chances diminish rapidly,



And this.

Ok. So situational awareness is tricky. Here is how to be situationally aware so as not to be eaten by a crocodile.






Now you will notice there is nothing about seeing a crocodile and reacting to it.


----------



## Gweilo

Ok, so you not are getting what I am saying about sport v SD, how often do you spar multiple attackers?, do you spar multiple attackers where anything goes? Or is it just hitting with the gloves on?  We obviously have a different opinion on situational awarness, although being around crocs and gators it would be a good advice to teach your kids the video, sadly we dont have crocs of elephants roaming the UK (have seen a few women around the supermarket that resemble such things). I know a few people who train mma, and the drill in Multiple attackers is new to them, so if that is your gym (and not a ramdom pluck from youtube), then well done to the instructor, especially if such drills are more complex, and the receiver in said video was either new to it or knackered, as there was little movement from him when he was under pressure other than running, and he exposed his ribs and kidneys abit, so it was probably a good job none of the others, used such strikes.
I dont know what more I can say about the referee being their, other than trying to reword what I already stated, with refs and rules in place, its very very very unliklely you are going to get seriously hurt or killed, and sport fighters in the back if their mind know this.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Ok, so you not are getting what I am saying about sport v SD, how often do you spar multiple attackers?, do you spar multiple attackers where anything goes? Or is it just hitting with the gloves on?  We obviously have a different opinion on situational awarness, although being around crocs and gators it would be a good advice to teach your kids the video, sadly we dont have crocs of elephants roaming the UK (have seen a few women around the supermarket that resemble such things). I know a few people who train mma, and the drill in Multiple attackers is new to them, so if that is your gym (and not a ramdom pluck from youtube), then well done to the instructor, especially if such drills are more complex, and the receiver in said video was either new to it or knackered, as there was little movement from him when he was under pressure other than running, and he exposed his ribs and kidneys abit, so it was probably a good job none of the others, used such strikes.
> I dont know what more I can say about the referee being their, other than trying to reword what I already stated, with refs and rules in place, its very very very unliklely you are going to get seriously hurt or killed, and sport fighters in the back if their mind know this.



Can you sho me a video of what you are trying to describe please?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> I dont know what more I can say about the referee being their, other than trying to reword what I already stated, with refs and rules in place, its very very very unliklely you are going to get seriously hurt or killed, and sport fighters in the back if their mind know this.



How do you go in a hard sparring session?

Because I have found people who are not used to that sort of environment mentality break well before they die if they are not used to it.

I have submitted self defense guys out with knee on belly.

And these are self defense guys who in theory are training for a much greater risk if they loose.


----------



## Gweilo

In my sparring sessions, no gloves or headguard, I do wear a box or nut cup whatever you call it, full contact, but the power of the strikes starts low and then builds, there is no set senario, i.e you could imediately try to take someone to the ground, or stay up right for a while, on multiple attackers similar to your video, but it will build to, one may have a knife, or a Jo, or there maybe 4 or 5 attackers.
With the strength of the strikes, it is determined by the students or the amount of time they have sparred, the reason for this is, in systema we beleive as you do, as well as building your bodies strength and resistance to strikes, you also have to build the phyche, as you are aware most people give up after receiving a descent strike, or when they see their own blood, or a stronger than normal pressure on a lock or hold, In Systema this training starts in the form of massage, we place increasing amounts of pressure to parts of the body with the hands or heel and ball of the foot, for example, I would place increasing amounts of pressure to a calf muscle with my heel, the student is to use their breathwork to breathe through it, and relax the muscle, and then more pressure is applied which they have to get to the point of a relaxed muscle to remove the discomfort or pain, another method is to lay face down with a medicine ball between the floor and your intestines, then relax, but let go to a point like you was just laying on the floor. In Toronto and Moscow, in closed sessions of knife defense they use live blades, and at incredible speed, in the uk this type of thing is frowned upon, we use marker pens instead, but if you are truely going to survive, you need to know you can, yes after sparring I have gone home with bruises, black eyes etc, but I will point out students are not forced to participate at an increased intensity and strength, what I do, and a few others in systema, is we like to push our boundaries, if you make a mistake we let each other know, this type of sparring is done behind closed doors, because it can frigthen other students, I am a firm believer in, if you pussy around in training, you are going to fight like a pussy, that part of mma I do admire, but you still have the safeguards of rules and refs (albeit for good reason),  your comment about people mentally breaking is bob on,, I couldnt agree more, training your mental reaction, as well as our physical reaction is vital, which was my point about the refs and rules, so for some these safe guards can help some to give up, let go, knowing the rules and the ref can intervene.
As to a video, these sessions are closed doors, so I have to ask the other participants permission to film and share, last time the answer was no, but I will ask again, failing that, if you are ever in the South West uk, pm me, you can come to a session with us, then go for a beer after, if you need accomadation I have a spare room, I am planning a 6 week holiday to the states later this year, and if in your neighbourhood, perhaps we could have a session and a beer.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> In my sparring sessions, no gloves or headguard, I do wear a box or nut cup whatever you call it, full contact, but the power of the strikes starts low and then builds, there is no set senario, i.e you could imediately try to take someone to the ground, or stay up right for a while, on multiple attackers similar to your video, but it will build to, one may have a knife, or a Jo, or there maybe 4 or 5 attackers.
> With the strength of the strikes, it is determined by the students or the amount of time they have sparred, the reason for this is, in systema we beleive as you do, as well as building your bodies strength and resistance to strikes, you also have to build the phyche, as you are aware most people give up after receiving a descent strike, or when they see their own blood, or a stronger than normal pressure on a lock or hold, In Systema this training starts in the form of massage, we place increasing amounts of pressure to parts of the body with the hands or heel and ball of the foot, for example, I would place increasing amounts of pressure to a calf muscle with my heel, the student is to use their breathwork to breathe through it, and relax the muscle, and then more pressure is applied which they have to get to the point of a relaxed muscle to remove the discomfort or pain, another method is to lay face down with a medicine ball between the floor and your intestines, then relax, but let go to a point like you was just laying on the floor. In Toronto and Moscow, in closed sessions of knife defense they use live blades, and at incredible speed, in the uk this type of thing is frowned upon, we use marker pens instead, but if you are truely going to survive, you need to know you can, yes after sparring I have gone home with bruises, black eyes etc, but I will point out students are not forced to participate at an increased intensity and strength, what I do, and a few others in systema, is we like to push our boundaries, if you make a mistake we let each other know, this type of sparring is done behind closed doors, because it can frigthen other students, I am a firm believer in, if you pussy around in training, you are going to fight like a pussy, that part of mma I do admire, but you still have the safeguards of rules and refs (albeit for good reason),  your comment about people mentally breaking is bob on,, I couldnt agree more, training your mental reaction, as well as our physical reaction is vital, which was my point about the refs and rules, so for some these safe guards can help some to give up, let go, knowing the rules and the ref can intervene.
> As to a video, these sessions are closed doors, so I have to ask the other participants permission to film and share, last time the answer was no, but I will ask again, failing that, if you are ever in the South West uk, pm me, you can come to a session with us, then go for a beer after, if you need accomadation I have a spare room, I am planning a 6 week holiday to the states later this year, and if in your neighbourhood, perhaps we could have a session and a beer.



A video is going to be better. Bare knuckle full contact is a big claim.


----------



## JP3

On the O/P... I'd sayt hat any of the grappling arts would work well, what's being described is a strategic decision... in other words, tactically choosing in all instances to create space, gain an escape-friendly position, and get back to the standing posture... rather than continuing the ground engagement.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> A video is going to be better. Bare knuckle full contact is a big claim.


Not a big claim at all, most of systema strikes are into muscle, joints or nerves, we do strike the head, but that is down to the individuals sparring, me I am ok with head strikes, as are some of the people I spar with, for me it is making defense as real as possible, without losing control, take one or give one, ask if the receiver is ok, yes continue.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> If you have a close look at what they are doing .  Unless they get completely merked with a throw by the time they have landed they are almost back on their feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are looking for technically is the fight for hands and knees position called turtle and from turtle to standing.
> 
> Bjj will instead fight for guard and then fight of their back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a side note. There is an idea that to enhance the concept of grappling and standing that you throw the guy and stay standing yourself.
> 
> But if you were dealing with anyone any good they will behave like that first video, stand back up and you will have basically wasted your time.



I re-quoted this one DB.  I had an interesting counter-arguement from someone else on another site.  First off, *as it relates specifically to my question*, take-down defense is a moot consideration.  (Not that it's an invalid one and is definitely something in favor of Wrestling for the style I'm looking at).

The other big point is that with wrestling (similar to an issue that boxing has), you have two major issues as it relates to the escapes that are trained:

Many of the escapes set you up for submissions
A lot of the time the strategy is to get into a position where you stop the fight and get into referee position, instead of actually trying to escape.
With that said, I do agree with you that Wrestling will train more actual escapes.  I also think if I took wrestling at an MMA gym, I would eliminate a lot of the problems with pure wrestling.  Of course, the same could be said about BJJ, as *I would assume* that at an MMA gym, some of the BJJ classes will be taught assuming the person wants to strike.



Gweilo said:


> Whats wrong with create or find the space, then fill it, be it on the ground, or upright?



Nothing, if you want to go for a pin or submission.  Everything, if you want to get back into striking range or weapon range.  The idea I have is to create a style that's not necessarily designed to stay unarmed, but which is designed to protect yourself until you can draw a weapon.



joemoplata said:


> If you are asking which grappling art is the best for defending yourself the answer is the same as asking which striking art is the best for self defense:  ALL OF THEM.  I have been doing BJJ for over 20 years at a gym that has national wrestlers that were Judo black belts before anything.   Doesn't mean I might not face a better wrestler than me so in that case I am super happy I have BJJ.  It's possible that I am fighting a better Judoka than me so I am super glad I know how to wrestle.  Maybe I got in a fight with a world champion BJJ player so I'm super glad that he probably has no wrestling or Judo so he won't be able to take me down at all.
> 
> Oh, and 8 years or so of Muay Thai.  This idea that 1 style or art is better than another is archaic.  Train everything that you can with everyone that you can.



Which is why I asked a specific question regarding an approach to a technique.  "Which striking art has the best kicks" is a much different question than "which striking art is best."



drop bear said:


> In theory nobody in wrestling should ever throw someone with a double leg.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss how training would make you predictable. That would be the best example.
> 
> It is literally the first throw and the first defense everyone learns.
> 
> But elite guys still manage to use it successfully.



This is kinda like Bill Wallace talking about landing kicks.  To paraphrase, it goes something like this:  _Everyone fighting knows all the techniques.  So how do they still get hit with it?  Well, here's a roundhouse kick to the ribs.  He sees it, gets used to it, and then I adjust and hit the face.  He sees that, gets used to it, so I hit him in the ribs again.  Now he figures out how to protect his face and ribs, but that leaves his other side open and I can hook kick to that side.
_
I've also seen the same thing in Hapkido (I think I mentioned in another thread we were in), where one technique might be a low % technique by itself, but then I can respond to their resistance and apply a technique more likely to succeed.  Change the context, that other technique is low %, and the first one becomes more successful.

In the case of this video, a lot of those double legs didn't succeed.  A lot of them did get the other person off balance for him to take their back instead.



JP3 said:


> On the O/P... I'd sayt hat any of the grappling arts would work well, what's being described is a strategic decision... in other words, tactically choosing in all instances to create space, gain an escape-friendly position, and get back to the standing posture... rather than continuing the ground engagement.



It is a strategic decision I'm making now, and looking for the best way of training it.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> What I advocate for self defense is mma plus. Not mma lite.
> 
> Or in this case wrestling plus.



The problem is there's only so much time you can devote to training.  It's a combination of what your schedule permits, and what your body and mind can handle.  Ideally I'd be training in 14 different martial arts, but unfortunately I only have the time to really devote to 2.  If I were to even add in 1 art, the other two would suffer for it.

Now, I say "suffer", maybe I'd be better off, maybe it would simply be a change.  But if you have 6 hours a week to devote to class, and you want to cover MMA from a self defense standpoint, then some of the MMA training has to take a back seat to cover concepts that are going to be specific to self defense.



drop bear said:


> So the comment that we train to fight multiple attackers has to come with a lot more evidence to be a credible statement.



I think there are credible and credulous methods out there.  I think the video you showed is either credulous or introductory (you can't be sure which).  Typically if there's a skill you haven't practiced much, then you're going to look like a fish out of water and your training partners will go easy on you so you're not completely overwhelmed.

There are some things that are definitely not good practical training.  The ones where you simultaneously take out multiple attackers with intricate throws or complicated combinations are a bit iffy (although great for demonstrations).  However, there are two concepts related to controlling the fight that does work*.   First off, there are *escapes* that can work against multiple people in the right context.  It is possible to break the grip of different people at the same time.  I just don't think it's realistic to throw them, and it's more likely to move into the next concept:  control the fight so that you're only fighting one guy at a time.  Use things like:

Pushes, shoves, and throws to create distance
Footwork to put one guy between the others
Traps and clinches to control one guy and put him between the others
*I put an asterisk after "work", because it's not like it's a band-aid "train these and you'll win."  It's more like, "train these and you're less likely to lose."  For example, if you're fighting two guys and decide to clinch one of them and pull him between you and the other, then you have to not only dominate the clinch, but dominate it to a degree that you can pay attention to the other guy and maneuver the clinch between you.  It's also going to be *very* demanding of your stamina and endurance, and you're almost definitely going to take more shots than if you fought them together.

I think any training which is "look at this cool move I can do where I do a quick step and flick my wrists, and five guys go flying" is bad training, but good entertainment.  I think any training which is "if there's two guys coming at me, how do I put myself in the best position to succeed" is good training.  What you have to do then is decide where to place it in your curriculum, if at all.  I personally place it later on, because as I said above:  you need to be competent enough to completely dominate one person in order to control them to handle the second.



drop bear said:


> Ok. So situational awareness is tricky. Here is how to be situationally aware so as not to be eaten by a crocodile.



I'm going to go back to what @gpseymour said about there being gaps in everyone's training.  Situational awareness is something to be mindful of.  You've decided it's not worth training.  That doesn't mean you should ridicule anyone who does train it.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> I'm going to go back to what @gpseymour said about there being gaps in everyone's training. Situational awareness is something to be mindful of. You've decided it's not worth training. That doesn't mean you should ridicule anyone who does train it.



I am kind of working back to front but situational awareness is good. It is often just trained so badly it is pointless.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The problem is there's only so much time you can devote to training. It's a combination of what your schedule permits, and what your body and mind can handle. Ideally I'd be training in 14 different martial arts, but unfortunately I only have the time to really devote to 2. If I were to even add in 1 art, the other two would suffer for it.



In self defense wrestling covers so much basic fighting concept that you get a massive reward for your investment. If you could wrestle but never trained multiple attackers you would be better off against multiple attackers than if you trained multiple attackers but never wrestled.

This is because the basic skills you will use to obtain your objective are contained within wrestling. Which is grappling people or not being grappled. They are for some reason very hard to hold down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am kind of working back to front but situational awareness is good. It is often just trained so badly it is pointless.


I'd love to focus more on situational awareness. I don't really know of many good ways to train it in a dojo. I could do more with a wandering class, and there are a few drills that seem to help reduce tunnel vision under stress, but that's about the scope of it, other than some reasonable recommendations (lecture time).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In self defense wrestling covers so much basic fighting concept that you get a massive reward for your investment. If you could wrestle but never trained multiple attackers you would be better off against multiple attackers than if you trained multiple attackers but never wrestled.
> 
> This is because the basic skills you will use to obtain your objective are contained within wrestling. Which is grappling people or not being grappled. They are for some reason very hard to hold down.


Does wrestling allow for purely defensive play? This is one of the areas where Judo rules conflict with self-defense concepts - you aren't really allowed to focus on defending the grabbing, as I understand it.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Now, I say "suffer", maybe I'd be better off, maybe it would simply be a change. But if you have 6 hours a week to devote to class, and you want to cover MMA from a self defense standpoint, then some of the MMA training has to take a back seat to cover concepts that are going to be specific to self defense.


That is kind of a cop out. If I wanted to be a MMA fighter and could only find time to train infrequently. The solution is find more time to train. 

There quite simply isn't a short cut that makes you good without effort.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Does wrestling allow for purely defensive play? This is one of the areas where Judo rules conflict with self-defense concepts - you aren't really allowed to focus on defending the grabbing, as I understand it.



Yes and no. The rules prevent it. But the system allows it.

If you told Jordan Burroughs to just stall and run he I am assuming he would be pretty good at it. 

If we got five plebs in a room I doubt they would be able to contain him in that room. 

It is like saying mma fighters can't kick you in the nuts. Well they are not legally allowed to but they kick well and manage distance well and it is not such a specialized technique that they couldn't throw or set up that kick. 

Rather than spending time on a kick shield nut kicking away. Getting some perfect nut shot.

Again it is bang for buck.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd love to focus more on situational awareness. I don't really know of many good ways to train it in a dojo. I could do more with a wandering class, and there are a few drills that seem to help reduce tunnel vision under stress, but that's about the scope of it, other than some reasonable recommendations (lecture time).



But like that video. Situational awareness is not walking in to a river, seeing a crocodile and reacting.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> On the O/P... I'd sayt hat any of the grappling arts would work well, what's being described is a strategic decision... in other words, tactically choosing in all instances to create space, gain an escape-friendly position, and get back to the standing posture... rather than continuing the ground engagement.



Some arts focus on stand up and escape skills though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes and no. The rules prevent it. But the system allows it.
> 
> If you told Jordan Burroughs to just stall and run he I am assuming he would be pretty good at it.
> 
> If we got five plebs in a room I doubt they would be able to contain him in that room.
> 
> It is like saying mma fighters can't kick you in the nuts. Well they are not legally allowed to but they kick well and manage distance well and it is not such a specialized technique that they couldn't throw or set up that kick.
> 
> Rather than spending time on a kick shield nut kicking away. Getting some perfect nut shot.
> 
> Again it is bang for buck.


Yep. I just wish Judo rules hadn't moved so far in that direction. Back in the day, hand fighting was taught more than I've been told it commonly is now, so folks take a lot longer to get as clean at it. I start more from that side: folks learn to escape a grip (the defensive side of grip-fighting) before they learn to use one in a technique. After a point though, the principles are the same. If folks practice using grips against each other, they'll learn to defend those grips.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> In self defense wrestling covers so much basic fighting concept that you get a massive reward for your investment. If you could wrestle but never trained multiple attackers you would be better off against multiple attackers than if you trained multiple attackers but never wrestled.
> 
> This is because the basic skills you will use to obtain your objective are contained within wrestling. Which is grappling people or not being grappled. They are for some reason very hard to hold down.



Which is why I said it would be something to put later into the curriculum.



gpseymour said:


> Does wrestling allow for purely defensive play? This is one of the areas where Judo rules conflict with self-defense concepts - you aren't really allowed to focus on defending the grabbing, as I understand it.



This is the issue I have with pure sport being an issue 



drop bear said:


> That is kind of a cop out. If I wanted to be a MMA fighter and could only find time to train infrequently. The solution is find more time to train.
> 
> There quite simply isn't a short cut that makes you good without effort.



It doesn't matter if it's 6 hours, 12 hours, or 50 hours of training a week, the point stands.  You only have so much time you can devote to training.  At some point you have to pick what you're not training in order to add something else in.

Also, for people with other commitments, like families, jobs, and other things, it may not be in the cards to train more.  Should they not train because they don't meet your standards?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> This is the issue I have with pure sport being an issue


After a point, it's less of an issue. Once someone puts in enough time, the skills start to become more generalized (not specific to the limited examples and applications they've worked on). The issue tends to be for the folks who haven't gotten there yet (some of whom may never do so, because of their priorities).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Also, for people with other commitments, like families, jobs, and other things, it may not be in the cards to train more. Should they not train because they don't meet your standards?


This is an important point. If someone wants to get really good, they need to spend the time. But if they just want to improve, then it's important to help them find what improvement is possible in the time their priorities allow.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep. I just wish Judo rules hadn't moved so far in that direction. Back in the day, hand fighting was taught more than I've been told it commonly is now, so folks take a lot longer to get as clean at it. I start more from that side: folks learn to escape a grip (the defensive side of grip-fighting) before they learn to use one in a technique. After a point though, the principles are the same. If folks practice using grips against each other, they'll learn to defend those grips.



We go the other way because it is infuriating to have to chase people around the mat who refuse to engage. And then they are not really practicing anything. 

So generally we start from a collar tie or engage in something.

Two people playing flappy hands for 5 minutes doesn't really train much.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> (some of whom may never do so, because of their priorities).



This is the part I have an issue with.  Not necessarily that people have priorities, but when people project their priorities onto others, and say what you should or shouldn't train based on their priorities.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> It doesn't matter if it's 6 hours, 12 hours, or 50 hours of training a week, the point stands. You only have so much time you can devote to training. At some point you have to pick what you're not training in order to add something else in.
> 
> Also, for people with other commitments, like families, jobs, and other things, it may not be in the cards to train more. Should they not train because they don't meet your standards?



They can train as much as they want but they won't meet their own standards if they don't train enough. 

Doing all the sport and supplementing it with self defense is probably the most efficient way to get the most result for the least amount of time. 

Sport creates capability exceptionally fast. 

We have a program that will take a guy off the street and put him in a full contact fight in 3 months. 

We can look a Aikido  Rokus development in a year. 

You could enter a MMA fight against a first time fighter and see for your self if you wanted.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> This is the part I have an issue with.  Not necessarily that people have priorities, but when people project their priorities onto others, and say what you should or shouldn't train based on their priorities.



I am not projecting anything. You will get a result that is proportional to the work you put in.

It is a joke I use a bit. Here I am busting my balls to fight one guy. When if I had done Krav maga I would have laid waste to the entire room by now.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> But like that video. Situational awareness is not walking in to a river, seeing a crocodile and reacting.



Situational awarness is indeed seeing the crocodile and reacting, but its also more than that, its recognising the signs of a crocodile before you actually see it.
Many beleive its an instinctual skill that we had in our days of hunter gatherers, but as life has become more comfortable, and less dangerous, we no longer refine or indeed seldom use it, we get flashes of it and call it a gut feeling. It is in us, we just need to reuse and refine these skills.
I am not going to go into detail, thats for another thread, but we can train ourselves in these skills, and its starts with trusting your feelings, it can be trained, some of the things we already know, like learn to use a knife, theres more chance of recognising someone else that is about to use one, albeit stance or movement or body language, another example take a basic front kick, and the biomechanics of that kick, usually so well practiced, over and over, if you study the movement, you can tell the point of execusion before it comes, you can distinguish the difference from a feint to an actual kick, purely by where the tension is in the body, and of course once the desision is made the biomechanics of the kick are so well drilled you know when,where and how the structure of the body will be if the kick is negated, its not easy, but it is a skill that can be homed, noticing subtle differences not being paranoid, someone once told me, if ever you meet someone who has been in a car accident, they say its like time slowed down, I am not talking about slowing time, but it can give that effect when situations/people are readable, but it is part of the puzzle that is YOU.


----------



## drop bear

While we are on the subject. Here is a rugby two on one tackle concept that straight up basically murders any sort of defensive footwork from the defender.






You put a guy on either side. One stops the guys momentum the other wraps his legs and he falls straight over. 

It basically breaks a multiple attacker sparring drill. And I live in a rugby league town. This is all people do.


----------



## Gweilo

gpseymour said:


> I'd love to focus more on situational awareness. I don't really know of many good ways to train it in a dojo



This sounds a bit cliche, but you and your students, do a whole class blindfolded, but get your students to ask themselves how they feel sporadically


----------



## Gweilo

skribs said:


> The problem is there's only so much time you can devote to training.



You can turn every day things into training, instead of bending over to pick something up, do a squat, in a queue at lunch time, move yourself subtley as if you was going to strike other people around you, take the stairs and run up them, you are only limited by your imagination.I have been caught so many times punching and kicking crap out of wrapped pallets of compost.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We go the other way because it is infuriating to have to chase people around the mat who refuse to engage. And then they are not really practicing anything.
> 
> So generally we start from a collar tie or engage in something.
> 
> Two people playing flappy hands for 5 minutes doesn't really train much.


They start with someone who already knows the gripping side, so that person is practicing getting the grips. This really starts as a very short intro to grip escapes, learning some basic principles early while they get used to the environment. It also gives me a chance to gauge their manual dexterity and pain tolerance (some folks have a very low threshold - something I hadn't known before I started training). Things progress pretty quickly to them learning to use those grips. Knowing those principles of escape in advance seems to help them understand what makes the grip effective. It's pretty much the same either way, I expect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> While we are on the subject. Here is a rugby two on one tackle concept that straight up basically murders any sort of defensive footwork from the defender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You put a guy on either side. One stops the guys momentum the other wraps his legs and he falls straight over.
> 
> It basically breaks a multiple attacker sparring drill. And I live in a rugby league town. This is all people do.


Lots of things break stuff. That's why we all train.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> So how does the ref jumping in change a tactic or a technique or a concept when it comes to self defense vs sport



4


----------



## pdg

Right, ok...



drop bear said:


> And of course there is this. <<Multiple sparring vid>>





drop bear said:


> It is a joke I use a bit. Here I am busting my balls to fight one guy. When if I had done Krav maga I would have laid waste to the entire room by now. <<"Sparring" vid>>



In both of those, while the exercises are more or less good for practicing what to focus on, and good for cardio, all of the 'team' are pretty much taking turns against the one.

Someone will be attacking/defending and the others are standing back and/or going around to a different angle.

I can't believe that DB (or his club) look upon that as serious sd against multiples.


I've seen a couple of "multiple v one" type "street" altercations, and it's extremely less polite. There's no waiting, no "after you, I insist" - it's full bore everyone at once whether they hit the person they intend or one of their friends.

It's way more like the classic schoolyard event where someone points and shouts "bundle" and everyone jumps on someone, all at once. The only way to avoid injury is to hang back a bit and be the one on top 

In the first vid, the single gets caught with an arm around the neck and the spare two stand watching - in the type I've witnessed, those two are going to be in punching and kicking.



Gweilo said:


> or there maybe 4 or 5 attackers



If it's 4 or 5 attackers who are out to really attack - it's run or game over.

If they're so polite as above to take turns, then sure, you've got a chance.

If it's a proper attack though, then really I don't care who you are or what you train, you're losing - badly. You'll likely get 2 or 3 rushing and restraining while the other 2 or 3 hit anything in range.


There is nothing I've ever seen to suggest ANY sd training against multiple attackers is anything other than utter fantasy - one, definitely - two, yeah, probably - three or more, best be thinking about what you want off the hospital menu (unless you get extremely lucky).


So, is there anything out there that has the potential to change my opinion, even slightly?


----------



## Gweilo

pdg said:


> If it's 4 or 5 attackers who are out to really attack - it's run or game over.



In the comments I made about the drills we practice, up to 4 or 5, the drill is as you rightly stated move to escape, move one adversary into anothers path, put a strike in if you can, but create space to escape, if you manage to escape in this drill, you turn and face them again, create space if you can, escape etc, Recommending to stand and fight 4 or 5 people borders on lunacy, if there is a chance to escape


----------



## pdg

Gweilo said:


> Recommending to stand and fight 4 or 5 people borders on lunacy, if there is a chance to escape



If there's no chance of escape, then you might as well give it a go. Nothing to lose if you're already screwed.

But if anyone said they have a system that can reliably train you to fight a group I'd laugh and point and walk away.



Gweilo said:


> if you manage to escape in this drill, you turn and face them again



Just so long as that's only part of the drill, and not the recommended method


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> If there's no chance of escape, then you might as well give it a go. Nothing to lose if you're already screwed.
> 
> But if anyone said they have a system that can reliably train you to fight a group I'd laugh and point and walk away.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so long as that's only part of the drill, and not the recommended method



I find it entirely hypocritical of a martial artist to advocate against training in a situation in which you also agree you would fight.

If you are in that situation, then having prepared for it will give you a higher chance of success.

Do you tell people to just go fight 1 on 1, or do yoh train them how? If someone goes from boxing to MMA, is it acceptable to train groundfighting by saying "if you get taken down, just fight as best you can", or do you train escapes and submission defense at the very least?


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> I find it entirely hypocritical of a martial artist to advocate against training in a situation in which you also agree you would fight.
> 
> If you are in that situation, then having prepared for it will give you a higher chance of success.
> 
> Do you tell people to just go fight 1 on 1, or do yoh train them how? If someone goes from boxing to MMA, is it acceptable to train groundfighting by saying "if you get taken down, just fight as best you can", or do you train escapes and submission defense at the very least?



Going into MMA from boxing is an achievable goal - with some training it's something that you stand a decent chance in, especially if you're a decent boxer in the first place.

And yes, train for 1 on 1 and for 2 on 1 - play a bit with 3 on 1 for a bit of extra pressure.

If you have 3 or 4+ absolutely clueless attackers then everything you learn in 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 will be directly applicable. 

A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run).

Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.

But if you have 3 people attacking who have anything like half a clue then I don't care what your training entails, barring extreme luck you're going down.

The very best you can hope for is to get really lucky, like lottery lucky, or to take at least one down with you.

If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers then quite honestly they're selling snake oil, and it's spoiled.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> Going into MMA from boxing is an achievable goal - with some training it's something that you stand a decent chance in, especially if you're a decent boxer in the first place.
> 
> And yes, train for 1 on 1 and for 2 on 1 - play a bit with 3 on 1 for a bit of extra pressure.
> 
> If you have 3 or 4+ absolutely clueless attackers then everything you learn in 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 will be directly applicable.
> 
> A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run).
> 
> Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.
> 
> But if you have 3 people attacking who have anything like half a clue then I don't care what your training entails, barring extreme luck you're going down.
> 
> The very best you can hope for is to get really lucky, like lottery lucky, or to take at least one down with you.
> 
> If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers then quite honestly they're selling snake oil, and it's spoiled.



I'm going to highlight two sentences:
_Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.
If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers_

These two statements are about 2 different things.  You don't have to defeat 3+ attackers, just survive long enough to get away (or at the very least take one of them down with you).  Also, there's a big gray area between "don't train" and "claim to reliably defeat".  

You go to an MMA gym and they'll all train you to fight MMA fighters.  That doesn't mean you'll reliably defeat MMA fighters.  How many people join an MMA gym expecting to become champions, and how many actually achieve that goal?

You've set a bar for success that is higher than what is realistic, and then made the simple analysis that it is impossible to meet that bar.  That doesn't mean that training 3+ is a waste of time.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

skribs said:


> If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?


For general getting back to your feet with someone trying to hold you down, wrestling is probably best overall of the traditional grappling arts.

BJJ isn't as strong in that department, but does have good methods for getting up while avoiding strikes and submissions, which traditional wrestling lacks.

Maybe the best option would be modern MMA wrestling, which incorporates traditional wrestling, plus strike awareness, plus submission awareness, plus methods for using a wall to help stand up if you are pinned against one.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> I'm going to highlight two sentences:
> _Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.
> If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers_
> 
> These two statements are about 2 different things.  You don't have to defeat 3+ attackers, just survive long enough to get away (or at the very least take one of them down with you).  Also, there's a big gray area between "don't train" and "claim to reliably defeat".
> 
> You go to an MMA gym and they'll all train you to fight MMA fighters.  That doesn't mean you'll reliably defeat MMA fighters.  How many people join an MMA gym expecting to become champions, and how many actually achieve that goal?
> 
> You've set a bar for success that is higher than what is realistic, and then made the simple analysis that it is impossible to meet that bar.  That doesn't mean that training 3+ is a waste of time.



You'll get a hell of a lot closer to attaining the goal of defeating or equalling a matched MMA fighter in an MMA fight by training MMA.

Training against 2 should give you what's required to  escape from 3 or more, if it's a group you stand a chance against in the first place.

Because with the group that don't know what they're doing, it'll be one or two taking the lead and the other(s) hanging about trying to look hard. Take down or get away from those one or two, you'll be out of range before the other(s) make up their mind whether to actually join in.

The group that do know what they're doing, you might get one down but at the same time the others will be on you like a tramp on chips.

That's the kind of situation where it's worth having a go*, but not really worth 'training' for because no training is going to do much - unless you're in a film.

And therein lies my previous statement - if you escape, you have defeated their purpose. And again - claim to reliably defeat 3+, especially if they have a clue = snake oil.




*A guy on YouTube, talking about taking apart a failed 'sealed for life' electronic item to have a bash at fixing it - might as well give it shot, it's already f'd, you can't f it more.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> Training against 2 should give you what's required to escape from 3 or more, if it's a group you stand a chance against in the first place.



By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.



If you honestly think that's what I'm even remotely saying then there's a much bigger language barrier than I ever thought.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run



They really don't.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.



What techniques win UFC fights?


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> What techniques win UFC fights?



Technically they're the same techniques.  But you of all people I would expect to know that if you're only practicing against beginners and amateurs, it's not enough to prepare for a pro-level fight.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> They really don't.



Hence it being a movie quote...


Edit: and even in the film, the last two don't run away - but even so it's a series of 1v1, 2v1, 1v1, police arrive and halt the last one - so it's still not 5v1.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> Technically they're the same techniques.  But you of all people I would expect to know that if you're only practicing against beginners and amateurs, it's not enough to prepare for a pro-level fight.



Are you honestly not seeing the disconnect in logic between MMA training and training to defeat (the purpose of*) a group of attackers?



*Seems I have to qualify everything I say at the moment...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

pdg said:


> Are you honestly not seeing the disconnect in logic between MMA training and training to defeat (the purpose of*) a group of attackers?
> 
> 
> 
> *Seems I have to qualify everything I say at the moment...


Im not fully sure i get what you're saying. Do you think certain techniques that work one on one arent worth practicing if youre concerened about a group of attackers? Or do you think since most attackers aren't trained, it doesnt matter what you learn?


----------



## pdg

kempodisciple said:


> Im not fully sure i get what you're saying. Do you think certain techniques that work one on one arent worth practicing if youre concerened about a group of attackers? Or do you think since most attackers aren't trained, it doesnt matter what you learn?



To summarise, and clarify the context, because it's admittedly easy to lose track... And because it appears you have utterly misinterpreted my previous posts 

This is from a practical defence perspective - if entertainment, do what you want 

Techniques for 1v1 (and 2v1) are the ones worth practicing.

Against a group that "aren't trained" (training in this context includes developing a strategy for your Saturday night brawls) it's more likely you'll be subject to a series of 1v1 or 2v1 as they take turns.

Escape (or beat) the first, and you've either got away, won, or you're on to the next.

Against a group that "are trained" (/practiced / they've thought about it / whatever) then the best you can do is use the 1v1 and 2v1 techniques and hope you get lucky enough. Because, quite honestly, if they've thought about it they'll be on you all at once from different directions.

There's usually the comment made about multiples, where if you concentrate on one you may miss his mate coming up behind - think about the one in front, one coming up from behind, one left, one right - all at once. What exactly is the training strategy to counter that? Line them up?


Somehow, skribs then made the ludicrous leap of equating that with hoping to be a UFC champ :/

To use that analogy - someone claiming to be able to teach legitimate 1v3+ techniques is akin to an MMA coach only teaching a handstand kick.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> To summarise, and clarify the context, because it's admittedly easy to lose track... And because it appears you have utterly misinterpreted my previous posts
> 
> This is from a practical defence perspective - if entertainment, do what you want
> 
> Techniques for 1v1 (and 2v1) are the ones worth practicing.
> 
> Against a group that "aren't trained" (training in this context includes developing a strategy for your Saturday night brawls) it's more likely you'll be subject to a series of 1v1 or 2v1 as they take turns.
> 
> Escape (or beat) the first, and you've either got away, won, or you're on to the next.
> 
> Against a group that "are trained" (/practiced / they've thought about it / whatever) then the best you can do is use the 1v1 and 2v1 techniques and hope you get lucky enough. Because, quite honestly, if they've thought about it they'll be on you all at once from different directions.
> 
> There's usually the comment made about multiples, where if you concentrate on one you may miss his mate coming up behind - think about the one in front, one coming up from behind, one left, one right - all at once. What exactly is the training strategy to counter that? Line them up?
> 
> 
> Somehow, skribs then made the ludicrous leap of equating that with hoping to be a UFC champ :/
> 
> To use that analogy - someone claiming to be able to teach legitimate 1v3+ techniques is akin to an MMA coach only teaching a handstand kick.



No.

I equated it to only practicing techniques against beginners and expecting to be a UFC champion.


----------



## drop bear

Anyway is there any evidence to support 3 0n 1 training work better than 1 0n 1 training?


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Anyway is there any evidence to support 3 0n 1 training work better than 1 0n 1 training?



For dealing with multiple attackers I'd think it would be common sense.  There are factors and strategies when dealing with another opponent that aren't present when fighting a single opponent.  

If I'm fighting multiple people, I'm trying to use one of them as a barrier between the others.  That's a concept that literally does not exist in 1-on-1.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> For dealing with multiple attackers I'd think it would be common sense.  There are factors and strategies when dealing with another opponent that aren't present when fighting a single opponent.
> 
> If I'm fighting multiple people, I'm trying to use one of them as a barrier between the others.  That's a concept that literally does not exist in 1-on-1.



And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?

So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.

Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.






An example of mobility drills that could be used to out position multiple attackers.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?
> 
> So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.
> 
> Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.



A competent fighter would know those techniques, but if all he's trained is 1-on-1, you can't know his competency in applying them outside of a 1-on-1 scenario.

It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer.  A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?
> 
> So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.
> 
> Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An example of mobility drills that could be used to out position multiple attackers.


Most of the drills I've used are precisely just applications of these kinds of things. It takes the tools already used, and applies them to this purpose. Not a huge change, but some factors are altered, so the practice is useful.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer. A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.



My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)

I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).

I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - my dad gave me a rough explanation, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.

I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (and pretty much could from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.

That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.

Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.



Sometimes, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)
> 
> I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).
> 
> I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - my dad gave me a rough explanation, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.
> 
> I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (and pretty much could from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.
> 
> That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.
> 
> Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.


While that's true, in most cases learning can be accelerated by specific training. That's why commercial truck drivers have special training. If they are really careful their first few times out, they'll be able to figure out most of it on their own. But the'll get to that skill level faster (and with fewer mistakes) if they are trained in how to translate the driving skills they have to the big truck. And some people don't need (or benefit from) that specialized training.

I think the same is true of fight training, in many ways. If you have the basics, you could figure out all the rest yourself. You'll develop skill more quickly if you have good training, and will develop for specific contexts faster if you train specifically for them. And some folks will do well without so much specialized training.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)
> 
> I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).
> 
> I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - *my dad gave me a rough explanation*, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.
> 
> I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (*and pretty much could* from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.
> 
> That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.
> 
> Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sometimes*, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.



I highlighted the most important words of what you said. 

First off, your Dad gave you a rough explanation and you were able to figure it out.  How well would you have been prepared without that explanation?
Sometimes people can extrapolate from existing skills.  But sometimes they need help bridging that gap.

You said "and pretty much could" do it the first time.  It sounds like there were at least a few bumps along the way.

Regarding doing 2-vs-1 or 3-vs-1, the same can happen.  It can be that the fighter recognizes he should position one of his opponents in between the other.  It's also possible that in the heat of the moment it doesn't occur to him.

Whether it's something you figure out, or it's something you were told to do, it's something that will require more conscious effort than if it's something you've drilled.  You do ~50% of your miles with a trailer.  It's a skill you keep sharp.


----------



## pdg

Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...

My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".

Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".



skribs said:


> You said "and pretty much could" do it the first time. It sounds like there were at least a few bumps along the way.



Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.

A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...




I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:

1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.

2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.

3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> A competent fighter would know those techniques, but if all he's trained is 1-on-1, you can't know his competency in applying them outside of a 1-on-1 scenario.
> 
> It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer.  A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.



I don't know anyone's competency outside a one on one scenario at this point.

That was my original question.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...
> 
> My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".
> 
> Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.
> 
> A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:
> 
> 1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.
> 
> 2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.
> 
> 3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) *in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.*



A lot of what you're saying lines up with what I am, but then you somehow reach a different conclusion than me.  I would think that the degree of the claim is what would be in question.  Training should always increase your chance of success.  If you train for it, your chance cannot remain the same.  However, to make it seem likely to survive, vs. a small increase in survival is the question.



drop bear said:


> I don't know anyone's competency outside a one on one scenario at this point.
> 
> That was my original question.



How would you assess said competency?


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> While that's true, in most cases learning can be accelerated by specific training. That's why commercial truck drivers have special training. If they are really careful their first few times out, they'll be able to figure out most of it on their own. But the'll get to that skill level faster (and with fewer mistakes) if they are trained in how to translate the driving skills they have to the big truck. And some people don't need (or benefit from) that specialized training.
> 
> I think the same is true of fight training, in many ways. If you have the basics, you could figure out all the rest yourself. You'll develop skill more quickly if you have good training, and will develop for specific contexts faster if you train specifically for them. And some folks will do well without so much specialized training.




There is one huge glaring difference here though.

Towing a trailer (of any size) is a known and verifiable skill that can be (and is) assessed.

There are multiple verifiable ways of teaching that skill, and each is suited to different people to varying degrees. Any half decent instructor will modify their training to suit the individual.

Even with that, there are people who can simply never do it, no matter how much training they have. Some can never even learn to drive, let alone tow.



In contrast:

3+v1 fighting is a fantasy if the 3+ are simultaneous.

It cannot (safely) reliably be verified or assessed in anything like a realistic fashion.

Instructors who sell such do so on the premise they can teach it to anyone. If there exist people who can't learn to drive where is the reason behind "anyone can learn this"?


----------



## pdg

Actually, screw leaving - I'm in that sort of mood.

I pick two other people to be with me.

We use the standard SD stuff of markers, or similar.

We 3 go against anyone - absolutely anyone - who claims that 3+v1 training is worthwhile.


I would lay money on the one not "winning" (escape/victory/whatever).




But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...



If you consider a gauntlet to be X-on-1 training then you would be correct, but that's not what a gauntlet is.  Your experience does not reflect mine in terms of how people choose to attack during these drills.


----------



## pdg

skribs said:


> If you consider a gauntlet to be X-on-1 training then you would be correct, but that's not what a gauntlet is.  Your experience does not reflect mine in terms of how people choose to attack during these drills.



I know what a gauntlet is (at least, what I think it is - a continual series of 1v1) and that's not what I was describing.

What I was describing was what you see in every single video of training against multiples.

It's also what you see in films where the hero is fighting loads of bad guys.


None of which is what I used to see in the biker pub on a Friday, or what I used to see in the mess when I was running the disco.


----------



## pdg

Here's an actual challenge, open to anyone:

Find a video of something you consider to be a realistic scenario / good training of multiple v one.


----------



## skribs

pdg said:


> What I was describing was what you see in every single video of training against multiples.
> 
> It's also what you see in films where the hero is fighting loads of bad guys.



First off, don't conflate bad choreography with training.

Second, if that's the go-to strategy people use in drills, it makes sense to assume that's what's going to happen a lot in a real situation.  I remember a fight one of my friends got in after school one day.  It went exactly like that.  The leader threw a punch at my friend, who punched him back, and then another guy came in.  The fight ended there (the leader really didn't like that punch), but they didn't all come at once.



pdg said:


> Find a video of something you consider to be a realistic scenario / good training of multiple v one.



Marshawn Lynch highlights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...
> 
> My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".
> 
> Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.
> 
> A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:
> 
> 1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.
> 
> 2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.
> 
> 3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.


You actually aren't that far from others' positions on this, PDG. If you look at your points, you're saying you can take related skills and figure out how to apply them. Of course, that's true. Not in the moment, under the pressure of a fight, but with some practice. The drills in the dojo are just that: a chance to practice applying those skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Actually, screw leaving - I'm in that sort of mood.
> 
> I pick two other people to be with me.
> 
> We use the standard SD stuff of markers, or similar.
> 
> We 3 go against anyone - absolutely anyone - who claims that 3+v1 training is worthwhile.
> 
> 
> I would lay money on the one not "winning" (escape/victory/whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...


This is almost exactly what I explain to students. A good, concerted group attack with some skill will almost certainly overcome you...perhaps unless you have a REALLY high level of fighting skill, or if you get lucky. But that's talking about 3 people acting like a wolfpack. That's not always what it looks like. We can find a lot of video evidence of multiple-attacker scenarios where one attacker comes forward while the others "back him up", which is a different scenario. I've also seen video evidence (I'm thinking of one specific one, at the moment) where the attackers strung themselves out and ended up attacking like a danged Chuck Norris movie - coming one after the other with a moment between for the defender to reorient.

IMO, that's the stuff we're training for. We can't train for when they do everything right, except to hone fighting skills in case a miracle happens (they trip over each other, etc.).


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> A lot of what you're saying lines up with what I am, but then you somehow reach a different conclusion than me.  I would think that the degree of the claim is what would be in question.  Training should always increase your chance of success.  If you train for it, your chance cannot remain the same.  However, to make it seem likely to survive, vs. a small increase in survival is the question.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you assess said competency?


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


>



Both are interesting, but not exactly an X-on-1 scenario.

The first one you linked can lead to it, but it's a slightly different take since you're usually already engaged.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> We can find a lot of video evidence of multiple-attacker scenarios where one attacker comes forward while the others "back him up", which is a different scenario. I've also seen video evidence (I'm thinking of one specific one, at the moment) where the attackers strung themselves out and ended up attacking like a danged Chuck Norris movie - coming one after the other with a moment between for the defender to reorient.
> 
> IMO, that's the stuff we're training for. We can't train for when they do everything right, except to hone fighting skills in case a miracle happens (they trip over each other, etc.).



If that's what you're training for, then that's not what I consider 3+v1(or whatever term you use for multiple) and imo calling it such is misleading.

That becomes more of a gauntlet (to use that term) where it's a succession of 1 or 2 v1.



gpseymour said:


> 3 people acting like a wolfpack.



3 or more 

Which is the only situation it's justifiably called 3+v1 (or whatever term you use for multiple).

It's also the type of fighting I used to see...

Common scenarios:

Someone comes in the pub and thinks it's funny to try insulting the bunch of bikers. At first it's ignored, or eye rolled, but they carry on, and on.

Eventually, it gets tedious enough that they get grabbed by 3 guys, given a little bit of a tickle () and unceremoniously thrown into the car park. 

Landlord says "cheers lads, he was a tit".


Or


A bunch of squaddies spots another who they think is sleeping with one of their wives, so they jump him...


In those cases it's effectively never "one with backup".


----------



## drop bear

I have been looking for some decent multiple sparring video. 

Man. There is some tragic rubbish on YouTube. 






Sorry but decent multiple oponant  training is probably a unicorn.

If someone can find a good example I will change my mind. But there is a lot of what I linked and doesn't seem to be any realistic sparring like people are describing.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> I have been looking for some decent multiple sparring video.
> 
> Man. There is some tragic rubbish on YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but decent multiple oponant  training is probably a unicorn.
> 
> If someone can find a good example I will change my mind. But there is a lot of what I linked and doesn't seem to be any realistic sparring like people are describing.



Yeah, that video - "you first", "no, after you, I insist"...


It's not just a unicorn - it's a gold plated unicorn called Steve who lost a leg in a nasty swimsuit incident but found love with Barry the minotaur and settled down in rural Shropshire to raise their adopted family of bats.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> If that's what you're training for, then that's not what I consider 3+v1(or whatever term you use for multiple) and imo calling it such is misleading.
> 
> That becomes more of a gauntlet (to use that term) where it's a succession of 1 or 2 v1.
> 
> 
> 
> 3 or more
> 
> Which is the only situation it's justifiably called 3+v1 (or whatever term you use for multiple).
> 
> It's also the type of fighting I used to see...
> 
> Common scenarios:
> 
> Someone comes in the pub and thinks it's funny to try insulting the bunch of bikers. At first it's ignored, or eye rolled, but they carry on, and on.
> 
> Eventually, it gets tedious enough that they get grabbed by 3 guys, given a little bit of a tickle () and unceremoniously thrown into the car park.
> 
> Landlord says "cheers lads, he was a tit".
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 
> A bunch of squaddies spots another who they think is sleeping with one of their wives, so they jump him...
> 
> 
> In those cases it's effectively never "one with backup".


It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have been looking for some decent multiple sparring video.
> 
> Man. There is some tragic rubbish on YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but decent multiple oponant  training is probably a unicorn.
> 
> If someone can find a good example I will change my mind. But there is a lot of what I linked and doesn't seem to be any realistic sparring like people are describing.


The best I’ve see. Or experienced was really just movement drills, not full-on sparring. Mostly because if you have a group of similarly skilled folks, with similar training, 1-v-x is a slaughter for the 1.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.



From your previous descriptions I can accept you using "multiple" because there's few options for any other term.

But only if used in conjunction with the other parts of your descriptions... Stuff like one+backup - because then it's multiple but segmented, whereas (as you seem to have identified) multiple all at once is a whole different game.

In effect my standpoint is based on the number of concurrent attackers, not on the number of consecutive attackers.

Multiple consecutive is somewhat trainable and great for fitness (they're always fresher than you) - multiple concurrent is where the fantasy aspect enters.

If "multiple" is used alone (and/or the people involved don't have the understanding you've gone through) then that's where it becomes misleading.

And that's also where my snake oil opinion comes in, because it's rare (to nonexistent) that the distinction between concurrent and consecutive is highlighted when the advertising wank comes out.


----------



## pdg

Additional to above, here's an example.

Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.

The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.

That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.

Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...


----------



## dvcochran

pdg said:


> Additional to above, here's an example.
> 
> Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.
> 
> The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.
> 
> That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.
> 
> Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...


"Mr. Marketing-Wank,  That made me laugh. 

We also do this drill regularly. 

For Mr. Marketing-Wank, this is not a new drill. Back in the day it was called Smear the Qxxxr.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> From your previous descriptions I can accept you using "multiple" because there's few options for any other term.
> 
> But only if used in conjunction with the other parts of your descriptions... Stuff like one+backup - because then it's multiple but segmented, whereas (as you seem to have identified) multiple all at once is a whole different game.
> 
> In effect my standpoint is based on the number of concurrent attackers, not on the number of consecutive attackers.
> 
> Multiple consecutive is somewhat trainable and great for fitness (they're always fresher than you) - multiple concurrent is where the fantasy aspect enters.
> 
> If "multiple" is used alone (and/or the people involved don't have the understanding you've gone through) then that's where it becomes misleading.
> 
> And that's also where my snake oil opinion comes in, because it's rare (to nonexistent) that the distinction between concurrent and consecutive is highlighted when the advertising wank comes out.


I guess the difference is how we're viewing "attacker". If there are three threatening to attack, those are the "attackers", even if one gets ahead of the others and gets in first, or they manage to stupidly string themselves out. I still need to account for all of them in my movement (doesn't do me much good to take out the first guy if I do it by putting the others directly behind me within arms' reach).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Additional to above, here's an example.
> 
> Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.
> 
> The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.
> 
> That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.
> 
> Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...


I'd agree that's 1v1 and 1v2. If you send a third a half-second later (while the first two are closing in, but this leaves him too far away for the first clash), then the scenario is 1v3. Part of the job of the defender is to try to keep the actual clashes from becoming 1v3, using movement, etc.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> I guess the difference is how we're viewing "attacker". If there are three threatening to attack, those are the "attackers", even if one gets ahead of the others and gets in first, or they manage to stupidly string themselves out. I still need to account for all of them in my movement (doesn't do me much good to take out the first guy if I do it by putting the others directly behind me within arms' reach).


Agree. Accounting for the 2nd or 3rd attacker does not necessarily mean you are countering them. Possibly only keep them in line of sight.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> Additional to above, here's an example.
> 
> Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.
> 
> The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.
> 
> That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.
> 
> Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...



Yeah. I is one of those tells about a martial art when you are expected to defend a really crappy situation. Do you mostly just get flogged or do you change the scenario so that the defender wins.

Escape from a rear bear hug is another. Where you will quite often see reality take a back step to making the defense work.


----------



## drop bear

Did I mention that basic rugby tackle theory breaks the multiple attackers drill?


----------



## Buka

Opinions tend to vary.

I find that It depends on if you’ve ever actually had to fight against multiple attackers in any way, shape or form.

Sometimes it’s riots, sometimes it’s boys out drinking and pounding their chests too much. And sometimes it’s about felony assault.

We sometimes delve into the “way” as opposed to the “you should do this” BS that people who have never actually done it tend to pontificate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I is one of those tells about a martial art when you are expected to defend a really crappy situation. Do you mostly just get flogged or do you change the scenario so that the defender wins.
> 
> Escape from a rear bear hug is another. Where you will quite often see reality take a back step to making the defense work.


Agreed. During drills, adjustments are needed to focus on practicing what's being taught. When it comes to attempting the defense (things closer to sparring), it's better if there's a bit more realism in it, and people should fail. This gives a chance to recognize what makes the situation more dangerous. Hard to create that line sometimes while maintaining safety, and sometimes not really worth it, for the small amount of time spent on a topic.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.





gpseymour said:


> The best I’ve see. Or experienced was really just movement drills, not full-on sparring. Mostly because if you have a group of similarly skilled folks, with similar training, 1-v-x is a slaughter for the 1.



I think part of it is starting with the 2 or 3 (or more) squaring off against you, instead of starting where you already have someone grabbing you.  At least give yourself the opportunity to use your feet.

I also think my ideal version of this type of drill would be for advanced students to practice on intermediate students.  I think that would be a more realistic application of the drill, one where the person can have greater control.

As an example, for my 2nd degree test I was supposed to do 4-on-1 sparring.  I chose 5 people.  Not because I wanted to go above and beyond, but because there was one guy I did *not* want to spar, and if I picked 5 people then nobody would ask why I didn't pick that one specific guy.  And it worked.  Everyone was cheering me on for going against that extra person and going 1-on-5, that nobody said "why didn't you pick that guy?"

If I were teaching multiple opponents, I would want to have red and brown belts practice against green and blue belts, black belts practice against red and brown belts, and 2nd and 3rd degree black belts to practice against 1st degree.  Alternatively, if it were a beltless system, I would have the more experienced and/or successful fighters train against those of moderate experience and success.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> I think part of it is starting with the 2 or 3 (or more) squaring off against you, instead of starting where you already have someone grabbing you.  At least give yourself the opportunity to use your feet.
> 
> I also think my ideal version of this type of drill would be for advanced students to practice on intermediate students.  I think that would be a more realistic application of the drill, one where the person can have greater control.
> 
> As an example, for my 2nd degree test I was supposed to do 4-on-1 sparring.  I chose 5 people.  Not because I wanted to go above and beyond, but because there was one guy I did *not* want to spar, and if I picked 5 people then nobody would ask why I didn't pick that one specific guy.  And it worked.  Everyone was cheering me on for going against that extra person and going 1-on-5, that nobody said "why didn't you pick that guy?"
> 
> If I were teaching multiple opponents, I would want to have red and brown belts practice against green and blue belts, black belts practice against red and brown belts, and 2nd and 3rd degree black belts to practice against 1st degree.  Alternatively, if it were a beltless system, I would have the more experienced and/or successful fighters train against those of moderate experience and success.


I've never run them segregated into ranks like that - I'll have to think about that concept. When we did them, it was either everyone above X rank, or everyone in the class, and the entire group (or sub-group if split up that way) would work round-robin so everyone got a chance to play.

One of the problems with a lot of drills is that - if you're playing the safety card - there's not enough penalty for the "attackers". They can risk everything to try to get their attack in, and the worst they'll get is a light punch in most cases. "In the street", hitting one of them hard can (doesn't always) have an effect on the rest of the group, but that effect doesn't show up in the dojo, since we're not trying to knock the other guys out.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> I've never run them segregated into ranks like that - I'll have to think about that concept. When we did them, it was either everyone above X rank, or everyone in the class, and the entire group (or sub-group if split up that way) would work round-robin so everyone got a chance to play.
> 
> One of the problems with a lot of drills is that - if you're playing the safety card - there's not enough penalty for the "attackers". They can risk everything to try to get their attack in, and the worst they'll get is a light punch in most cases. "In the street", hitting one of them hard can (doesn't always) have an effect on the rest of the group, but that effect doesn't show up in the dojo, since we're not trying to knock the other guys out.



I think this is where a lot of those rules come in, like "if you get hit, stay down for 5 seconds".  Rules which make it work with light contact, but then other people see it and call it phooey.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> I think this is where a lot of those rules come in, like "if you get hit, stay down for 5 seconds".  Rules which make it work with light contact, but then other people see it and call it phooey.


Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds. 

The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds.
> 
> The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.



I know some knife-fighting arts use rubber knifes with lipstick on them and wear white shirts.  Guy with more lipstick on his shirt loses.

One idea I had is if the life-bar electronic sparring gear catches on in Taekwondo, to do something similar for multiples.  Like have 3 people with 30 HP each, and 1 person with 100 HP (or something similar).


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds.
> 
> The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.



We have light(er) sessions for teaching technique and hard contact sessions for drilling. During hard sessions everyone wears forearm pads, groin protection, and a chest protector. Many people will wear headgear and shin/instep pads. Our floors have the interlocked padding.
It only takes one or two hard sessions for a new person to figure out they need PPE. We have plenty of hogus and headgear but most people prefer their own headgear at some point.


----------



## skribs

dvcochran said:


> We have light(er) sessions for teaching technique and hard contact sessions for drilling. During hard sessions everyone wears forearm pads, groin protection, and a chest protector. Many people will wear headgear and shin/instep pads. Our floors have the interlocked padding.
> It only takes one or two hard sessions for a new person to figure out they need PPE. We have plenty of hogus and headgear but most people prefer their own headgear at some point.



When I started practicing nunchucks, I'd wear headgear and a cup.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> When I started practicing nunchucks, I'd wear headgear and a cup.


How are you ever going to learn if you don't concuss yourself with it???


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

pdg said:


> Yeah, that video - "you first", "no, after you, I insist"...
> 
> 
> It's not just a unicorn - it's a gold plated unicorn called Steve who lost a leg in a nasty swimsuit incident but found love with Barry the minotaur and settled down in rural Shropshire to raise their adopted family of bats.


I just learned a lot more about @Steve than I needed to know..


----------



## Acronym

skribs said:


> Typically, when people look at a grappling art, they're looking at how well you can win the fight once you're on the ground.  Maybe your main sport is the grappling art, in which case the submission or pin is how you get the win.  Or you train the art to train your ground game, in which case once it goes down you want the submission.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who's primary is striking, and if I go down I'd like to create space and get back to my feet (or vice versa).
> 
> My thoughts on this are that wrestling, judo, and BJJ all have different advantages towards this.  I took wrestling 20 years ago, and I remember training escapes.  BJJ I know seeks to control space, i.e. by creating space and filling it.  Do the concepts apply to creating space and then using that space?  Or what about Judo.  I hear they tend to be more explosive, where BJJ tends to be more methodical.
> 
> If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?



Here's grund game strength and weaknesses as I see them

*Judo* strong top game but very vulnerable from a guard (barely have a guard due to their rule set).


*BJJ* best submissions grappling style for competitions/mat, but a bit naive for the streets, since they take their time. Obvious advantage to Judo is that there is a highly sophisticated guard, wheras Judokas have to put all their cards on being (and staying on top)

*
Catch wrestling* :similiar strength and weakness as Judo but no GI, and less rule restrictions


*Sambo*: roughly Judo level.


----------



## Acronym

skribs said:


> If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?



The one with the best guard and that would have to be BJJ. Guard is when you are at bottom


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Acronym said:


> The one with the best guard and that would have to be BJJ. Guard is when you are at bottom


To clarify for the uninitiated, guard is when you are on the bottom _with your legs in play_, not in the bottom of mount or side mount or turtle, etc.


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> The one with the best guard and that would have to be BJJ. Guard is when you are at bottom



Sort of. Wrestling has a better ability to stand back up as it is rewarded in their rule set.

So you don't get guard but you do get turtle and sit outs.

Which is a very real trade off.







And so where a wrestler might stand up. A BJJer might re guard from that position.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Sort of. Wrestling has a better ability to stand back up as it is rewarded in their rule set.
> 
> So you don't get guard but you do get turtle and sit outs.
> 
> Which is a very real trade off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so where a wrestler might stand up. A BJJer might re guard from that position.


I think at least some of us BJJers are learning to explore the standing up option rather than re-guarding by default.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think at least some of us BJJers are learning to explore the standing up option rather than re-guarding by default.



A lot of the BJJ guys I train with are essentially wrestle jitsu by default because MMA. And will stand up.

So yeah. There is a lot of cross over. And the advantage is you can generally play any meta you want unless you are actually competing.

Even striking is technically grappling. I mean banging a guy in the head untill he let's me pass guard is a guard pass.


----------



## Acronym

drop bear said:


> Wrestling has a better ability to stand back up .



Not if they are caught in submission grappling they aren't.. Wrestling would be a very poor choice for a rookie at submission grappling who just want to get out of those situations because they expose their backs a lot, and this will lead to TS getting choked.


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> Not if they are caught in submission grappling they aren't.. Wrestling would be a very poor choice for a rookie at submission grappling who just want to get out of those situations because they expose their backs a lot, and this will lead to TS getting choked.



Not so much. 

So staying with one technique for the sake of simplicity. Here is the sit out used to protect the back and therefore the submission.


----------



## Acronym

drop bear said:


> Not so much.
> 
> So staying with one technique for the sake of simplicity. Here is the sit out used to protect the back and therefore the submission.



You don't learn wrestling for BJJ in pure wrestling schools


----------



## dvcochran

Acronym said:


> Not if they are caught in submission grappling they aren't.. Wrestling would be a very poor choice for a rookie at submission grappling who just want to get out of those situations because they expose their backs a lot, and this will lead to TS getting choked.


IF a frog had a clutch he would not jump.


----------



## Acronym

Don't get me wrong, Wrestling is awesome... But, it's more of a superior athletes sport IMO. If you're an average dude, I think more technical arts like BJJ and Judo might serve your purpose better.

Wrestling is an awesome base to not get taken down.. but TS asked about getting up...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Acronym said:


> You don't learn wrestling for BJJ in pure wrestling schools


By which you mean places training for wrestling competition, only? Why is that "pure"?


----------



## drop bear

Acronym said:


> You don't learn wrestling for BJJ in pure wrestling schools



That is why I showed two sit outs.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> By which you mean places training for wrestling competition, only? Why is that "pure"?



Perhaps @Acronym can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think he's talking about people coming out of HS and College wrestling programs in the United States (Folkstyle I believe). I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the US, BJJ schools get a fairly constant stream of ex-HS and College wrestlers who have amazing takedowns and top game, but get caught in all sorts of submissions in their early days on the mat because they simply aren't used to continuing the fight when their opponent is on their back, and frankly because BJJ is loaded with attacks and escapes from the bottom position (duh).

If those wrestlers stick with Bjj, they actually end up having an advantage over "pure" Bjj practitioners as they move up the ranks. This typically occurs around Blue belt level when their bottom game catches up with their strong top game and takedowns.


----------



## Hanzou

As an aside, some of my best Bjj instructors had a wrestling background.


----------

