BJJ for the Street. Does it work?

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

Striking someone is always dangerous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.
That's not a flaw in grappling, it's just a thing that is. You can't stop someone with strikes without injuring them, either (unless they just give up, which would also apply to grappling, handguns, etc.).
 
The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?
Because punching, kicking, smacking with a stick, or stabbing with a sharp/pointy is non-injurious? <cough>
 
Osotogari is grappling.

Anyway hitting people in the street is as dangerous as choking them.
I'd add that osoto gari is probably as likely to cause serious injury (head to the pavement) on an unskilled (at falls) opponent as anything else is.
 
Self-defense and fighting are totally different things. If you're at the ATM and a guy decides to attack you, why in the hell would you willingly take it the ground if striking will suffice? The problem with BJJ guys is they want to take it immediately to ground--which is fine in the safety of the ring, but foolish in real life.

Lol. If you're mugged at an ATM and spot an opening to perform, say, o-soto-gari, why not do that? Knock him on his *** with a a simple o-soto-gari and run. No need to get tangled with the guy. (And if he's like most muggers, he's probably got a knife or something in his pocket. More reason not to willingly go straight to grappling.)
Actually, I'll argue the BJJ side of this. I'm not a BJJ guy (a smattering of experience with it), but I think they get too much **** about this.

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

Second, there are times when moving to the ground (not pulling guard, but subduing the other guy to the ground - think side control, etc.) makes good sense. What I teach is primarily standing grappling, secondarily striking. We have enough ground work to be competent if we end up there, and that's about it. Except that we do train pins and controls for keeping the other guy down there once we put them down, for those situations where running isn't our immediate best option. I'd be willing to bet money a strong BJJ blue belt is as good at keeping most people on the ground (once they are there) as I am.
 
Lots of people ask which art is best for self defense. The answer is simple, the best art for self defense is the art you are most willing to train regularly. Wab25SuperFu may be the ultimate art, able to defeat all other arts in seconds... but if you are not willing to train regularly, it won't help you at all. If people will train bjj or tkd or aikido regularly, then that is the art that will be most effective for them. Your art may vary.

The argument that grappling, leads to a point where you have to release the other guy or injure him has some holes in it as well. People training grappling arts can train getting back up after the tap. There are ways to maintain your lock, or move to another lock, allowing you to get up, while the other guy is still locked up and or pinned. This of coarse must be practiced. We practice "exiting with control." Exiting with control can be practiced in all arts, and applies to striking arts as well. You wouldn't knock a guy down with a kick, then turn your back on him would you?
 
The main flaw I see in grappling is that you can't really end the confrontation without injuring your attacker. If you simply release him, he could easily surprise attack you. If you have your attacker in an armbar or whatever, will you let go and risk attack, or break his arm and risk getting arrested for excessive force?

It's still good to know how to grapple, though. Just don't willingly go to the ground.
In a serious fight, you have a few different options for ending the fight:

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

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

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

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

You can restrain your opponent until help arrives or your opponent calms down and decides to stop fighting. (There is always the risk that help will not arrive or your opponent will change his mind and start fighting again, but sometimes it's the best tactic.) This option is only available via grappling.
 
I'd add that osoto gari is probably as likely to cause serious injury (head to the pavement) on an unskilled (at falls) opponent as anything else is.

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

I saw a video once of a guy who just randomly duplexed this reporter who did not even seem hurt. I still have no idea how he did that.
 
First, so what if you do injure your opponent? Assuming of course your opponent has attacked you first. You should not continue attacks yourself if your attacker stops, but while you opponent is attacking you, he deserves whatever he gets imho.

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



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

I disagree about your attacker "deserving" a broken arm or a broken neck. It's foolish to go straight for a lethal technique when a less lethal will suffice.
 
Why? You achieve a null effect. You throw them down. They stand back up. You are back to 50/50.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest Discussions

Back
Top