BJJ for the Street. Does it work?

[Charlemagne]

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

Please stop.

 

[drop bear]

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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

 

[Paul_D]

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

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

It's self-defense.

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

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

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

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

You're not, and you shouldn't

I will still defend myself in whichever way I can

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

NO mercy for the wicked, is what I say.

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

 

[Paul_D]

Self-defense and fighting are totally different things.

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

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

 

[Paul_D]

Why? You achieve a null effect.

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

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

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

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

 

[lklawson]

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


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


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


You're not, and you shouldn't


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


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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Paul_D]

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Ofcourse, there will be some differences. That is implied

 

[Paul_D]

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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

 

[lklawson]

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


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

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

Or, you know, not.

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

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

 

[lklawson]

Ofcourse, there will be some differences. That is implied

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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Paul_D]

one of the criminals then shot him in the head.

Exactly, they dont want to fight you.

 

[lklawson]

Exactly, they dont want to fight you.

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

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anarax]

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

FH

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

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

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

 

[MA_Student]

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

FH

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anarax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anarax]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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