Anti-grappling.

[RTKDCMB]

The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.

The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.

I have ended up on the ground on two occasions in real self defense situations and both times I got up fast enough on my own terms.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Well why isn't it? Super drunk people are dangerous as well. Especially super drunk people who are bigger than you are and want to cave your face in.

Ryan did a great job here. He consistently tried to talk the guy down and avoid a confrontation. When that didn't work, he restrained the guy without hurting him. When that didn't work he put him to sleep completely. All without seriously hurting the guy.

Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.

I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:

1. Ryan had superiority of numbers

2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills

3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence

4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation

There are probably more.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.

 

[Hanzou]

I have ended up on the ground on two occasions in real self defense situations and both times I got up fast enough on my own terms.

An anecdote that doesn't disprove my statement in the slightest.

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

The most ironic thing about this is that if you actually understood grappling, you would end up back on your feet a lot faster on your own terms.

The less you know about grappling, the longer you're going to be where you don't want to be.

Thats exactly my philosophy.

 

[Hanzou]

I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:

I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" SD situation.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Knowing how to defend yourself should you find yourself on the ground is wise, purposely looking to fight on the ground is not.

Very well summed up.

For the benefit of anyone reading this who is not yet convinced as to why certain strategies/tactics/techniques that you see in competition aren't ideal for real life self-defence situations in "the street" I think this video sums it up pretty well:

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

I like to start it from:

- avoid clinch (don't let your opponent to get clinch on you),
- counter clinch (take advantage on your opponent's clinch and apply joint locking on him),
- throw resistance (remain balance and body structure, ...),
- counter throw (take your opponent down instead),
- ...

This is more aggressive way of thinking. If you try to take me down, I will take advantage on your take down commitment, apply take down counter, and take you down instead. Of course, when you think this way, the term "anti-grappling" will have no meaning.

May be "avoid clinch" should be the highest priority of "anti-grappling".

Well said but unfortunately allot of traditional Martial Artist leave out the range of clinch in their live practice and tend to be taken down by a good takedown practitioner.

The whole term anti-grappling dosent make since to me anyways since like you said they should be concentrating their time on how to avoid being taken down if they don't want to be on the ground.

With out training the grappling positions most of this anti-grappling stuff isn't applicable since the practitioner training the anti grappling techniques won't have the fundamental knowledge of how to reverse a less dominant position and maintain a dominant position.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

I don't think there's such a thing as a "typical" SD situation.

That's why I used the quotation marks.

Let me put it another way, is it really self-defence? The dude may have threatened him and acted aggressively, but I didn't see him attack Ryan. If Ryan could have kept it verbal for a few more minutes the cops would have turned up and dealt with the guy for him. But then he may not have got a free meal out of it.

Nice way to ignore all the other points I made btw

 

[RTKDCMB]

An anecdote that doesn't disprove my statement in the slightest.

Well since your statement was unfounded in the first place it doesn't matter if my "anecdote" disproves it or not.

 

[Hanzou]

That's why I used the quotation marks.

Let me put it another way, is it really self-defence? The dude may have threatened him and acted aggressively, but I didn't see him attack Ryan. If Ryan could have kept it verbal for a few more minutes the cops would have turned up and dealt with the guy for him. But then he may not have got a free meal out of it.

Did we watch the same video? The guy was in Ryan's face and the cops didn't arrive for another several minutes.

Sure Ryan could have waited for the guy to slug him in the face, but why would you do that?

Nice way to ignore all the other points I made btw

Your points were pretty irrelevant.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.

I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:

1. Ryan had superiority of numbers

2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills

3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence

4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation

There are probably more.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.

I agree with most everything you said. I will differ on a point though. I think the first time this Ryan took him to the ground was justified. The drunk was in his face, hands up and he was issuing threats. The second time, not so much. Ryan took him from behind, which is not self defense (though if the drunk had been actively attacking someone it he would have been justified). No one has the right to get in your face while issuing threats and waving their hands in a hostile manner. This goes back to ability and intent. The second time though was verbal and pretty iffy.

As you mention, a good example of a martial art that can control an attacker/aggressor without physical blows. Many arts have this type of training. For the most part, this Ryan guy did show excellent restraint and several people were trying to diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, the other guy just wasn't having any of it.

One thing to note; many would consider, from a legal standpoint, a choke to be deadly force. This needs to be considered along with other ways of defense i.e. striking the throat, hitting into the temple, gouging the eye(s) etc. The definition of deadly force may vary but is along the lines of something that has the potential of causing death and/or great bodily harm. A choke falls into this category. The second time Ryan took him to the ground and choked him out really wasn't at a deadly force response level i.e. he may have difficulty in a court of law justifying his actions. Indeed, he even risks the possibility of arrest. This is a general statement and just something to consider. What is 'okay' in the gym maybe viewed as 'not okay' in a court of law. It will all boil down to what is viewed as reasonable by citizens who may or may not be martial artists themselves (read the jury). Just tossing this out for consideration of the reader.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Did we watch the same video? The guy was in Ryan's face and the cops didn't arrive for another several minutes.

Sure Ryan could have waited for the guy to slug him in the face, but why would you do that?



Your points were pretty irrelevant.

I guess we watched it with different eyes, you seem to think that the numbers and allegiances and intentions of the supporting cast are irrelevant whereas I and certainly some other people have a different opinion.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

I agree with most everything you said. I will differ on a point though. I think the first time this Ryan took him to the ground was justified. The drunk was in his face, hands up and he was issuing threats. The second time, not so much. Ryan took him from behind, which is not self defense (though if the drunk had been actively attacking someone it he would have been justified). No one has the right to get in your face while issuing threats and waving their hands in a hostile manner. This goes back to ability and intent. The second time though was verbal and pretty iffy.

Funnily enough I was just thinking the same after reading Hanzou's reply regarding waiting to be punched in the face, so no need to differ on that point, it's fair imo.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Funnily enough I was just thinking the same after reading Hanzou's reply regarding waiting to be punched in the face, so no need to differ on that point, it's fair imo.

Gotcha

You do have a point with the participants involved. For the most part, the drunk's buddy and Ryan's buddies were trying to diffuse the situation. That's excellent. The situation of course changes if any of those factors change.

 

[drop bear]

Personally I don't think it's a good example of how BJJ can be used in self-defence, I'd say it's a good example of how it can be used to subdue somebody without doing them serious or permanent damage when the odds are stacked in your favour.

I don't think it's a "typical" SD situation for the following reasons:

1. Ryan had superiority of numbers

2. Ryan had superior firepower - both his own and his dining companions MA skills

3. The douchebag was clearly inebriated and his friend wasn't interested in joining in with any violence

4. Both times it did get violent Ryan was the one who initiated the escalation from a verbal to a physical situation

There are probably more.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't an A-hole or didn't deserve it, but there were a lot of factors in Ryan's favour that enabled him to deal with the guy by taking him to the ground safely.

This comes back to my statement. There is no the street. The set of factors at that time warranted taking the guy to the ground. A different set of factors may not.

I don't understand why people are trying to change what actually happened.

Here is the thing. I have friends.When I go out I am probably out with them. It is not uncommon for that situation to occur.

 

[drop bear]

Very well summed up.

For the benefit of anyone reading this who is not yet convinced as to why certain strategies/tactics/techniques that you see in competition aren't ideal for real life self-defence situations in "the street" I think this video sums it up pretty well:

So are we going to start a new thread on defending an attack you don't see coming? Because short of magic. I don't really see a solution.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

This comes back to my statement. There is no the street. The set of factors at that time warranted taking the guy to the ground. A different set of factors may not.

I don't understand why people are trying to change what actually happened.

Here is the thing. I have friends.When I go out I am probably out with them. It is not uncommon for that situation to occur.

I don't think anyone is trying to change what happened, or say that Ryan's actions weren't mostly appropriate, but I thought it was important to acknowledge those factors that made it appropriate.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

So are we going to start a new thread on defending an attack you don't see coming? Because short of magic. I don't really see a solution.

lol no but if the people in those clips had made different choices then they may have seen them coming

 

[K-man]

I like to start it from:

- avoid clinch (don't let your opponent to get clinch on you),
- counter clinch (take advantage on your opponent's clinch and apply joint locking on him),
- throw resistance (remain balance and body structure, ...),
- counter throw (take your opponent down instead),
- ...

This is more aggressive way of thinking. If you try to take me down, I will take advantage on your take down commitment, apply take down counter, and take you down instead. Of course, when you think this way, the term "anti-grappling" will have no meaning.

May be "avoid clinch" should be the highest priority of "anti-grappling".

Not swapping sides here but avoiding a clinch is not all that easy unless you do a lot of training to avoid it. Then you get an unexpected attack and you have a clinch anyway. I would modify the statement to "try to avoid the clinch". (Geoff Thompson has some very good 'fence' material if anyone is interested in that aspect of training.)

Second part I would say is almost impossible. If someone has you in a clinch it would not be easy to get a joint lock on them as in a clinch everything is locked in tight.

Third part, I agree totally but again it takes a lot of training to get to that level. We call it 'maintaining your centre'.

Fourth part, again not always an easy option especially if your opponent has some grappling experience. Counter throw certainly, but be prepared to be taken down at the same time. Rather than struggle to maintain your feet I would prefer to go to the ground with a knee or elbow to the neck etc. then regain my feet ASAP.

When you say "avoid clinch" as the priority I'm in agreement on one hand and struggling on the other. In a SD situation I firstly want to get away, therefore avoid clinch. If I am committed to fight, my training is to clinch, on my terms, to gain control.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Originally Posted by drop bear
OK. If you have been knocked over you are not trying to take them down with you?

No because then it would be harder to get back up.

I'm with mostly with drop bear here. If I'm being taken to the ground I want my primary opponent with me so I can still have control. If I am knocked down without the ability to control my opponent it gets more difficult as I am more vulnerable to attack while regaining my feet, which of course is why we train specific ways to regain your feet.
:asian: