BJJ self-defense is TKD self-defense

[skribs]

In the kid's BJJ class yesterday, my Professor did self-defense before getting into the lesson. The attack the uke was simulating was a haymaker punch, the defense was a basic knife-hand block, hook the arm into a head-and-arm throw.

The exact take-down was different than I've typically done in TKD class, but the rest of it (including the uke's attack and the style of the drill) was pretty much the same as punch defense in TKD.

I just think its funny after doing TKD for years and reading how inferior it is to BJJ, then we go and do the exact same stuff.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the kid's BJJ class yesterday, my Professor did self-defense before getting into the lesson. The attack the uke was simulating was a haymaker punch, the defense was a basic knife-hand block, hook the arm into a head-and-arm throw.

The exact take-down was different than I've typically done in TKD class, but the rest of it (including the uke's attack and the style of the drill) was pretty much the same as punch defense in TKD.

I just think its funny after doing TKD for years and reading how inferior it is to BJJ, then we go and do the exact same stuff.

Striking is striking and there are on so many ways to do it.

In short there is a direct path to striking. This is the same movement for all systems. Then there's the indirect path. The indirect path is determined by the type of system.

The indirect path are all the things that are done to land a strike. For example, Long Fist systems make use of strikes that travel outside the field of vision by occupying the defenders eyes with large movements. A direct strike doesn't rely on addition movements. It's straight A to B like a jab.

A feint + jab would be an indirect punch. Because it requires that you do something before sending the punch. Wing Chun traps before punching is another example of an indirect strike.

A direct overhand strike would be indirect if it requires that a jab be thrown first.

 

[drop bear]

That is unusual for bjj.
Normally it is a change levels or a sort of weird cover.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In the kid's BJJ class yesterday, my Professor did self-defense before getting into the lesson. The attack the uke was simulating was a haymaker punch, the defense was a basic knife-hand block, hook the arm into a head-and-arm throw.

The exact take-down was different than I've typically done in TKD class, but the rest of it (including the uke's attack and the style of the drill) was pretty much the same as punch defense in TKD.

I just think its funny after doing TKD for years and reading how inferior it is to BJJ, then we go and do the exact same stuff.

Yes and no ...

The old-school Gracie jiu-jitsu curriculum could be conceived of as broken down into 3 categories.

1) Grappling (especially ground grappling) against another skilled grappler. This includes techniques and strategies which could be applicable in MMA or self-defense, as well as in sportive grappling competitions. This has always been the most heavily emphasized portion of BJJ training and decades of constant testing and experimentation has produced a constant stream of technical refinements and innovations.

2) Vale Tudo, or tactics for challenge matches including striking against trained fighters, particularly representatives of other martial arts. This was one of the mainstays of how the Gracies built the reputation of the art and it eventually led to the creation of the UFC and from there to modern MMA. Most of this portion of the art could potentially be applied in a self-defense context, depending on the requirements of the particular situation. Once again, because this curriculum was subject to constant live testing in real fights, it continued to develop for decades. However, in recent years many practitioners who are interested in this aspect have started to split off this portion of their training into MMA classes, while some others who don't care to deal with the possibility of getting punched have stuck just with the pure grappling aspect. So now you have some BJJ practitioners who limit themselves to pure sportive grappling, others who train more comprehensive fighting skills (but only at the level the art was at 30 years ago), others who have continued to progress the vale tudo aspects (but call it MMA), and a small minority who try to incorporate the refinements which have come from the last 30 years of MMA back into their official BJJ classes.

3) "Self-defense". In the old Gracie curriculum this was an assortment of techniques to deal with attacks from an untrained assailant that wouldn't usually come up in the previous two categories - untrained haymakers, headlocks, wrist grabs, bear hugs, standing chokes, knife stabs, etc. These were ... not particularly distinguishable from the "self-defense" techniques you might see in a wide variety of other martial arts including TKD. Because this curriculum was not being regularly tested and refined in competition, real fights, or "self-defense" scenarios, it didn't benefit from the same process of continual refinement and improvement that the other aspects of the art did. Most BJJ practitioners who found themselves having to defend themselves in a street assault typically defaulted to the methods from categories 1 and 2 above. So ... regarding the current state of affairs. Many schools have simply dropped the old Gracie self-defense curriculum entirely. Some have retained it like a traditional museum piece, but primarily just use it for warm-ups or for test requirements (in those schools that have tests). Some have kept parts of it, particularly those which overlap with the vale tudo curriculum. Finally, some of us have reworked the entire concept by taking the lessons from decades of fighting experience in the jiu-jitsu community, looking at the ways that asymmetric, non-consensual violence can occur in the real world, and examining how to modify the tactics we might need to use in those contexts, while still applying the underlying principles that we learn from the rest of our BJJ practice.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That is unusual for bjj.
Normally it is a change levels or a sort of weird cover.

Im so glad Jow Ga Luk Choi doesnt have that same opening with our Luk Choi. This is a good example of why CMA Long Fist strikes the way they do. I bet a lot of them got caught with that before the guy it right.

 

[Oily Dragon]

That is unusual for bjj.

It's more judoish, because a haymaker or overhand is a perfect setup for ippon seionage, because the puncher is already off balance and momentum is forward.

In fact I recall my judo coach specifically using that sort of strike to point out how easy it is (especially against someone in a gi) to accept that arm, get inside, butt bump and at that point uke is just falling over you, gravity does all the work.

Almost got that to work in a match once, but the other dude was smart and stayed well rooted (a critical San Shou skill).

Sure you already know this but you never want to raise that rear foot like that against a grappler, however they respond, body throw or shoulder throw, they know to look for off balance moments.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Im so glad Jow Ga Luk Choi doesnt have that same opening with our Luk Choi. This is a good example of why CMA Long Fist strikes the way they do. I bet a lot of them got caught with that before the guy it right.

Also why the most fundamental of all Shaolin and Wudang and similar based arts is level changing. It's almost like a litmus test of good training, sometimes I'll see people in different styles schools standing up with no rooting at all, and my brain starts to cook up different body strikes and throws, because I know if they start thowing strikes ive got their lower 80% to work with.

Even when I thought I was decent at that, I worked with a really short Xing Yi dude who could easily get inside my clinch and toss me around, even though I probably had 100 lbs on him. Had to sink! There are some Kuen poems out there that mention this.

Especially in Hung Ga based arts like Jow Ga, wheel punching can (and really should) be practiced at different heights/stances, or even in a BJJ mount.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That is unusual for bjj.
Normally it is a change levels or a sort of weird cover.

It's very interested to compare your video with my video. Why the approach is so much different?

Video 1 - avoid arm contact.

Video 2 - encourage arm contact.

 

[dunc]

The traditional BJJ self defence curriculum is essentially the same as the one used by Judo
Similar to Judo it gets very little attention and a lot has been lost in translation over the generations
So I would say that self defence in BJJ is very underdeveloped

I’m speaking in general terms and there are groups that give self defence more focus, have their own curriculum etc etc

For me the self defence value of BJJ is to be entirely comfortable in any kind of grappling situation (incl standing) and to be able to completely dominate/control someone without having to resort to techniques that may injure your opponent (& potentially get you into legal trouble as a result)

 

[JowGaWolf]

to completely dominate/control someone without having to resort to techniques that may injure your opponent (& potentially get you into legal trouble as a result)

After a few incidents I would say that the legal risk us still there. I personally wouldn't want the courts to assume that I'm so skilled that controlling a person in a way that insures my attackers safety is the norm. That begins to set an unrealistic legal expectation of BJJ. I rather ho in legally with the assumption that my safety wasn't guaranteed and that my striking nor my training guarantees safety for me or my attacker. So I do what a reasonable person would do which is to fight with my all to ensure my safety. Not knowing if I would win or lose. I just think BJJ sets themselves up for some hardships of being a gentle martial arts in terms of self-defense is just asking for trouble.

Evidence of everyday people beating up kung fu masters works for me legally. Lol

 

[dunc]

After a few incidents I would say that the legal risk us still there. I personally wouldn't want the courts to assume that I'm so skilled that controlling a person in a way that insures my attackers safety is the norm. That begins to set an unrealistic legal expectation of BJJ. I rather ho in legally with the assumption that my safety wasn't guaranteed and that my striking nor my training guarantees safety for me or my attacker. So I do what a reasonable person would do which is to fight with my all to ensure my safety. Not knowing if I would win or lose. I just think BJJ sets themselves up for some hardships of being a gentle martial arts in terms of self-defense is just asking for trouble.

Evidence of everyday people beating up kung fu masters works for me legally. Lol

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a legal expectation of being able to control someone safely

However, a core skill of BJJ is to pin down a resisting opponent and prevent them moving to the point where you can apply a submission. The controls are not transitionary, it's straightforward to hang out in these control positions burning minimal energy while your opponent gasses out. BJJ folk do this every day and doing it vs an untrained opponent is kinda easy

And yes I appreciate that self defence is broader and more complex than just that element

 

[Oily Dragon]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a legal expectation of being able to control someone safely

However, a core skill of BJJ is to pin down a resisting opponent and prevent them moving to the point where you can apply a submission. The controls are not transitionary, it's straightforward to hang out in these control positions burning minimal energy while your opponent gasses out. BJJ folk do this every day and doing it vs an untrained opponent is kinda easy

And yes I appreciate that self defence is broader and more complex than just that element

Damn dude, you know my secret weapon now...it's the only way I could make it through some sessions. Those short little rests when you've got control but can relax and catch your breath are priceless.

I've seen some funny people do things like hum the Jeopardy theme while taking a siesta in side control, etc.

 

[dunc]

Damn dude, you know my secret weapon now...it's the only way I could make it through some sessions. Those short little rests when you've got control but can relax and catch your breath are priceless.

I've seen some funny people do things like hum the Jeopardy theme while taking a siesta in side control, etc.

I spend most of my time rolling with folk less than half my age so managing the ratio of effort between me and my opponent is kinda helpful

 

[drop bear]

It's very interested to compare your video with my video. Why the approach is so much different?

Video 1 - avoid arm contact.

Video 2 - encourage arm contact.

Because going through people's arms will get your head punched in. And especially going through people's arms with your hands away from your head trying to grab people.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a legal expectation of being able to control someone safely

However, a core skill of BJJ is to pin down a resisting opponent and prevent them moving to the point where you can apply a submission. The controls are not transitionary, it's straightforward to hang out in these control positions burning minimal energy while your opponent gasses out. BJJ folk do this every day and doing it vs an untrained opponent is kinda easy

And yes I appreciate that self defence is broader and more complex than just that element

The thing is for self defence you also kind of don't want to just have more powerful attacks than they do. It is a mugs game. As you will still be getting attacked.

You want to shut down their ability to attack.

 

[wab25]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is a legal expectation of being able to control someone safely

However, a core skill of BJJ is to pin down a resisting opponent and prevent them moving to the point where you can apply a submission. The controls are not transitionary, it's straightforward to hang out in these control positions burning minimal energy while your opponent gasses out.

There is a disconnect in the narrative here to be aware of, if you are concerned with the legal end of it.

When determining whether self defense is justified, the "reasonable man" test is used. Would a reasonable man be afraid for his life. If a reasonable man would be afraid for his life.... then there is a lot more latitude in what that reasonable man can do, up to and including lethal force.

So, if you are attacked, you can say "I was afraid for my life, so I grabbed the nearest thing, which happened to be a crow bar and hit him as hard as I could." This sounds reasonable and logical.

On the other hand, if you say "I was afraid for my life, so I ducked under his attack, and gently put him on the ground, where I tried to maintain a controlling position, until he gassed out..." That raises the question.... "Well, how afraid were you really?" It is logical for a person who is in fact, afraid for their life, to respond with all available force. But, if you are making the choice to control the situation, and not going full force.... are you really "afraid for your life?"

Further, if you are in a dominant position, controlling the other guy, and he gets hurt... you may have other problems. It may have been reasonable to be afraid for your life when he was initiating the attack. But, once you have him on the ground and are controlling him, is it reasonable that you would be afraid for your life? Is this still self defense on your part?

I am not suggesting that anyone is wrong here. More that you do some research into self defense law where you are. This stuff will differ, depending on where you are. It also may be a good idea not to lead with terms like "self defense" until after you have talked to your lawyer.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because going through people's arms will get your head punched in. And especially going through people's arms with your hands away from your head trying to grab people.

I don't understand your logic here. If you don't want your opponent to punch at your head, should you try to

- dodge his punching arms so he can punch you over and over, or
- disable his punching arms so he can't punch you anymore?

 

[Hanshi]

Generally any woman/girl with training who's been attacked by a man is pretty much justified in nullifying the attack in any way they can to keep from being injured, sexually assaulted or kidnapped. Similarly a man with bona-fide disabilities or an obviously much older man or both would likely have to choose between getting seriously injured or killed. They, too, are justified in using "fighting for one's life" when attacked although it may receive more focused, legal, attention than the previous case.

So it is as much a moral situation as a legal one. Doing needless damage or continuing on simply to punish the attacker for his hubris is not legally nor morally defendable or justified.

 

[wab25]

Generally any woman/girl with training who's been attacked by a man is pretty much justified in nullifying the attack in any way they can to keep from being injured, sexually assaulted or kidnapped. Similarly a man with bona-fide disabilities or an obviously much older man or both would likely have to choose between getting seriously injured or killed. They, too, are justified in using "fighting for one's life" when attacked although it may receive more focused, legal, attention than the previous case.

So it is as much a moral situation as a legal one. Doing needless damage or continuing on simply to punish the attacker for his hubris is not legally nor morally defendable or justified.

We were talking about the situation where someone attacks you, and you control them to the ground and maintain a dominant controlling position.

One of the things that can give someone the right to use lethal force is a disparity of force. This is what you are talking about, generally a man verses a woman, or a young man verses an elderly man. But, there are also a couple of other ways to achieve disparity of force. If two equally sized and equally skilled men are fighting, and one breaks the others knee.... now he has a disparity of force, even though they started equal. Now, the guy with the broken knee is justified in using lethal force, because of the disparity. Another way this could happen is if one guy gets knocked down to the ground and the other guy is either on top of him or kicking/stomping him.

So, in our example.... someone attacks you, you could be afraid for your life and therefore justified in defending yourself. However, it gets tricky once you have gently controlled him to the ground and are maintaining a dominant position. In this case, the other guy is justified in using lethal force, because of the disparity. If you then injure him.... it becomes very tricky here because you had the dominant position, thus the disparity of force was in your favor.

I am not saying that you will be in trouble here. I am also not saying that you will not be in trouble. What I am saying is that every locality probably handles this a bit different. It would be worth some time learning about the details that are in effect in places where you spend a lot of time. Your country / state / county may and probably does handle these things differently than where I live. However, we can all research how things are handled where we live. We should also appreciate that these things are never simple and easy on the legal side. Getting proper legal advice is not a bad idea either.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because going through people's arms will get your head punched in. And especially going through people's arms with your hands away from your head trying to grab people.

The boxing clinch happen all the time. Why do you think clinch is so difficult to achieve?