BJJ vs striking arts in self defence

Now I see these as, not always but sometimes, problematic (especially in my line of work) because you never know what surface you are on as well as the fact that such positions create issues with rapid disengagement that circumstances may dictate (a weapon drawn, your own weapon retention, additional assailants joining the fray etc.)

Again we may be talking about concerns that I encounter more often than others, mileage may vary

So the issue with BJJ is you would have to give some moves preference over others depending on the situation.

And you couldn't just do that?

Because that is exactly what they do for MMA.
 
That is not the case.

If you can actually wrestle. You can put a guy down easily even if they are really fighing you. That is part of the training. Now you generally don't in a fight because there is more risk of them stuffing your take down or recovering.


But if you have the advantage then you can employ nice techniques.

This I think shows that you don't actually take into account all the variables we deal with; relative size, strength, real resistance and the most important....

When I deal with someone in that way, no exaggeration, they are saying "he will steal my freedom." I have dealt with 90lbs girls who resisted so forcefully I feared they would break their own arm because they knew what was coming. That loss of a "right" creates a dynamic no octagon, no ring, no "typical" bar room brawl can replicate.

I only say this because I was once a soldier so I know bar room brawls, heck barracks brawls. This is something different though and that is why I so often admit that my point of view may be from the singular point of view of my near 2 decade career and not a universal rule.
 
This I think shows that you don't actually take into account all the variables we deal with; relative size, strength, real resistance and the most important....

When I deal with someone in that way, no exaggeration, they are saying "he will steal my freedom." I have dealt with 90lbs girls who resisted so forcefully I feared they would break their own arm because they knew what was coming. That loss of a "right" creates a dynamic no octagon, no ring, no "typical" bar room brawl can replicate.

I only say this because I was once a soldier so I know bar room brawls, heck barracks brawls. This is something different though and that is why I so often admit that my point of view may be from the singular point of view of my near 2 decade career and not a universal rule.

Yeah. because i have never arrested people.

Anyway I had a chat to a mate of mine Derek heckle who has a bit of wrestling and asked him if there is wrestling takedowns that could cause you to bang your head on the concrete. or mat.

And.


Derek White-Gold Heckel
Negative. I honestly can't think of a single takedown that allows my head to bounce off the mat/street unless I land terribly wrong.

images
 
Yes but we can't just say "I am looking to knock them the F-out." We have "red zones", "yellow zones" and "green zones" in terms of where we can strike or, via other techniques, cause inanimate objects to strike intentionally. If I knock someone out, I need to be able to justify it in a very objective manner. Dropping someone on their head (so to speak) intentionally has to be justified specifically and if my UoF memos keep saying "during the course of the takedown the suspect accidentally struck his head" when strikes to the head were not justified to quote an old TV show "Lucy you have a lot of explaining to do."

A skilled Wrestler at your cop friend's level, should no doubt, have the ability to take someone down at various levels from nice and light to smash him into the concrete, head first for the KO. This would depend on the Perp's aggression, size, etc. If he's KO'ing his own self in hard take-downs, then I suspect he's not that good of a Wrestler as he claims or he's way out of practice or something.

That, in combination with the fact the other person doesn't know what to do but you can't "go easy" can create issues. I will give you and extreme example. One day I was alone in an ER with a mentally ill subject I had to take down. During the struggle we moved and when I finally started the takedown I suddenly noticed that I had the suspect headed head first into plate glass next to the ER's automatic door. I had two choices, continue the takedown and risk the suspect going face first through it risking serious bodily injury, that wasn't justifed, or "abort" and risk minor to moderate injury to myself to maintain control. Due to the circumstances I did the later and jacked the tendons in one elbow. Now in a "generic" self-defense scenario this decision may not have been as important so as I said elsewhere I may be inserting issues that more generic self defense scenarios don't need to worry about.

This shouldn't be that difficult for even a good Blue Belt in BJJ. When we train BJJ, we don't always go balls to the wall when sparring with everybody...usually only that hard vs. those of equal skills/rivals. The margin between locking someone in an armbar to get them to tap but not pop their elbow (causing 6-12 months of no training + rehab)...is quite slim. The armbar has to also be tight enough that they can't get out, especially if they're equally skilled. Attacks to the leg joints are much, much more slim.

You may find yourself in a position where to get into a "top mount" like say this

hqdefault.jpg


that permits easier disengagement and isolates you from the ground and possible environmental injury BUT to get here it may require an extra move or two. Muscle memory, and its typical focus on efficiency, may have you instinctively have you move to an "end game" that resembles

220px-MCMAP_-_rear_naked_choke_-_091121-M-0000A-139.jpg

or
7.jpg


Now I see these as, not always but sometimes, problematic (especially in my line of work) because you never know what surface you are on as well as the fact that such positions create issues with rapid disengagement that circumstances may dictate (a weapon drawn, your own weapon retention, additional assailants joining the fray etc.)

Again we may be talking about concerns that I encounter more often than others, mileage may vary.

I really knew you were going to say this :) . Although I also thought you were going to say that BJJ'ers will often jump guard too....glad you didn't though, so I was wrong on this one.

These pics that you posted, could happen with a BJJ only guy in the streets, but it doesn't necessarily have to. We know how to do standing armbars or wristlocks or even just a knee to the belly Kimura. Some untrained person on the street is going get wrecked easily in a grappling match vs. a mere BJJ Blue belt...so there's really no need for the BB to put his back to the ground.

I know all of this because there are so many Cops, Feds, Secret Service, etc. that comes to our gym for BJJ training ...mostly due to their Department's training being inferior. When they first come in, most of them are terrible. The decent to good ones (with only their department's training), are maybe at the level of our decent White Belts who aren't even close to being promoted to Blue yet. One of my long time Cop friend is a BJJ Black Belt who worked 20+ years as a cop in the ghettos of a major metro area....and much of his thug beatdowns to keep them in line, were way before the age of bodycams...so he's been in quite a few street fights. And he's also a big time Wrestler in his teens and now coaches Wrestling, etc.
 
So the issue with BJJ is you would have to give some moves preference over others depending on the situation.

And you couldn't just do that?
It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... if you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.

I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.

On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.

In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. :banghead:This was after I had just explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.

I don't think it's particularly hard to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.
 
It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... if you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.

I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.

On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.

In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. :banghead:This was after I had just explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.

I don't think it's particularly hard to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.
And this basically illustrates my point. More than a few times, here and elsewhere I have spoken not that "<insert art here> has issues", rather, "all to often <insert art here> is taught in a manner that is impractical for the street because the focus is on competition/sport.

@FriedRice this is my main point. I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.
 
And this basically illustrates my point. More than a few times, here and elsewhere I have spoken not that "<insert art here> has issues", rather, "all to often <insert art here> is taught in a manner that is impractical for the street because the focus is on competition/sport.

@FriedRice this is my main point. I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.

The thing is here though the art or the training doesn't define the level of street knowledge. That is just dependent on who turns up and what they know.

There is as much real world self defence knowledge in my MMA school as there is in a dedicated self defence school.
 
@FriedRice this is my main point. I think it's great that you, Tony here and some others do bring the Street into the Dojo but all too often people try to bring the Dojo to the Street and that rarely works well for those who don't have regular contact with real violence so they have the experience to work things out for themselves.

But you're speaking from your perspective as a cop with a badge and gun in a bad area.

Not everyone lives in a bad neighborhood. I used to live in North Philadelphia and went to high school there....look it up, it's a warzone. But now I live in a decent suburb. Then there are people who lives in multi million dollar, gated communities. The *real* street violence for them is cussing at some other rich broad over a parking space or something. But when it comes to training and real life application, you cannot go all out Krav Maga, death move on some old chick that's screaming at you over that parking space and claw her eyes out just because she stepped into your "kill zone".

BJJ only, is still usually, better than most other TMA's and especially the SD's. With MMA being the best, but still never guaranteed; which is why I also carry a gun and a knife. But you seem to think that BJJ'ers don't have the ability to assess situations...ie. "we're on the cement of a parking lot and not a matted floor, so it's probably not a good idea to jump guard...".
 
It's not hard to select the appropriate tactics and techniques based on situational context ... if you train with some thought beforehand on what tactics and techniques are appropriate for a given situation and at least occasionally have training sessions to address different likely situations so you can practice switching your tactical mindset to whatever is appropriate for that scenario. If a practitioner never does that, they may fall into habitual behaviors which are inappropriate for the situation, whether that's MMA, a street assault, or something else entirely.

I occasionally set up exercises for my students which require them to do something different from normal sparring. Maybe they have to get past an "attacker" to reach an exit. Maybe they are on top of one opponent and have to react to a second opponent who comes to help the first. I've found that it's not uncommon for students who only used to applying their skills in only one context to get tunnel vision and stick to their normal game plan even when it doesn't fit the scenario.

On time in the "get past the attacker to the exit" game, almost all of the students ended up taking down the "attacker" and working for a submission instead of running to the exit as soon as they got the opportunity. The only student who followed instructions perfectly and didn't get tangled up on the ground was a brand new student who hadn't developed the sport habits yet.

In the case of the "second attacker" jumping to help his buddy on the bottom, I had one student stubbornly try to keep the first opponent pinned down while simultaneously trading punches with the second opponent. :banghead:This was after I had just explained that the biggest advantage of knee mount is that it allows you to disengage quickly and retreat in just that sort of situation.

I don't think it's particularly hard to switch tactics for the current situation. (At least not for me.) It's not even necessary to spend a huge amount of time drilling "street" scenarios. You just have to spend some time in advance thinking about it and getting occasional practice in switching gears so you can maintain a useful mental flexibility. It's been my experience that not everybody does that.

I think you have to train to solve problems. This idea that you need a formula for the street often goes to far. Can you fight on stairs? what if it is a wall and not a cage. What if there are two guys and not one?

Have the tools that you can use in different environments. Have the mind set to employ them.

people figure stuff out.


 
Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe. Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't. For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.

It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.
So, how does one know? That's the pickle. Isn't it? I have a theory.
 
But you're speaking from your perspective as a cop with a badge and gun in a bad area.

Not everyone lives in a bad neighborhood. I used to live in North Philadelphia and went to high school there....look it up, it's a warzone. But now I live in a decent suburb. Then there are people who lives in multi million dollar, gated communities. The *real* street violence for them is cussing at some other rich broad over a parking space or something. But when it comes to training and real life application, you cannot go all out Krav Maga, death move on some old chick that's screaming at you over that parking space and claw her eyes out just because she stepped into your "kill zone".

BJJ only, is still usually, better than most other TMA's and especially the SD's. With MMA being the best, but still never guaranteed; which is why I also carry a gun and a knife. But you seem to think that BJJ'ers don't have the ability to assess situations...ie. "we're on the cement of a parking lot and not a matted floor, so it's probably not a good idea to jump guard...".
I know the area quite well. I am from Philly and the town I work in is sometimes called "Little Philly" by those who moved out to it :). I still remember a couple of "interesting" encounters I had visiting friends who lived on Clearfield near K&A lol.

I agree with your overall view of street violence and I am NOT questioning BJJ alone. I actually apply the "it's the teacher" and "experience" to all Martial Arts. I just believe any art, striking or grappling, that focuses exclusively (or near enough) on one of those particular methodologies ends up needing to lean more heavily on that experience or the instructor and if either isn't there they are at a disadvantage.

The only reason I was addressing BJJ directly here is because that was the topic raised. I can be a little anal retentive in that way in conversations, focusing on the specific topic at hand, sometimes almost myopically.
 
There is as much real world self defence knowledge in my MMA school as there is in a dedicated self defence school.
I expect that is true. Taking the information from Tony's post (which aligns with my training experience), do you train for the difference in responses for the context? That's really the primary advantage, IME, of a (good) program that trains for self-defense. That can be done within the confines of a school that teaches for competition. Steve often makes some pretty good arguments that that might be a very good place to do so.
 
I think you have to train to solve problems. This idea that you need a formula for the street often goes to far. Can you fight on stairs? what if it is a wall and not a cage. What if there are two guys and not one?

Have the tools that you can use in different environments. Have the mind set to employ them.

people figure stuff out.


I agree. And that means training for contexts besides the anticipated sport context (for the MMA-based school). There are a lot of variations that could be used to develop this, and the most useful would be to train some specific variations/scenarios that may occur on the street, but are unlikely to occur in the ring. That's what Tony describes in his post.
 
Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe. Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't. For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.

It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.
So, how does one know? That's the pickle. Isn't it? I have a theory.
I agree with that concept. I also think it's reasonable to include some training that improves your odds in both of those situations. That's not "trying to train for everything", but training for some of the less unlikely variations. In fact, I occasionally get that student who is really into the "what If". He wants to know what you could do if someone attacked a very specific way. I don't like dealing with all those, and you and DB have pointed out why in this thread. To your point, that would lead us down the rabbit hole of training for every possible scenario. And to DB's point, if we train to solve problems (primarily by understanding how and why the techniques work and some basic tactics/strategies for fighting), then it shouldn't be necessary to train for every problem, individually. Occasionally, I'll humor the asker and teach a response, mostly because it's a good place to teach some variation and problem-solving. Mind you, the response I teach will be one supplied by the asker, with some coaching to get to a useful response, if necessary. Often, if I decide to address the attack in question, I'll set each training group to solving that particular problem, then coach on their approach.
 
I expect that is true. Taking the information from Tony's post (which aligns with my training experience), do you train for the difference in responses for the context? That's really the primary advantage, IME, of a (good) program that trains for self-defense. That can be done within the confines of a school that teaches for competition. Steve often makes some pretty good arguments that that might be a very good place to do so.


I think this is the thing, if I understand correctly. Imo people perhaps focus too much on a particular art in a global context, BJJ, MMA, Wing Chun, Krav Maga, Kali, don't care they focus too much on the art alone. If I study BJJ at a place that is focused on competing in BJJ (not a self defense instructor) and I don't somehow on my own try to incorporate a more "street" oriented training, I will be at a disadvantage compared to someone who does have that additional orientation (pressure testing being equal). Where BJJ, and MMA, have an advantage over most TMA's is not, again just my opinion, in the art itself but in the fact that most TMA's have crap pressure testing.

So imo a "self defense" ranking would look something like this...

1. Any proven MA that has pressure testing AND has quality, and varied, instruction in the various dynamics of real world self defense scenarios.
2. Any proven MA that has pressure testing that is learned by someone who either seeks out such scenario training on the side or experiences it for real irl.
3. Any proven MA that has pressure testing in it's own "bubble" (read competitive MAs)
4. Some of the modern systems that are designed around exploiting natural reflexes to assault and have some scenario testing.
5. DEAD LAST, TMAs with little to no pressure testing and that don't due scenario training.
 
I know the area quite well. I am from Philly and the town I work in is sometimes called "Little Philly" by those who moved out to it :). I still remember a couple of "interesting" encounters I had visiting friends who lived on Clearfield near K&A lol.
.

OMG, that's pretty cool. I went to Olney High School. And I thought that you were in the UK or Australia.
 
Trying to train for everything is going about it from the wrong direction, I believe. Fundamentally, it's better to know what you can and cannot do, than to think you know things you don't. For example, it's better to know you can effectively fight one guy, and question your ability to fight multiple people, than to believe you can fight multiple people and find out too late you can't even effectively fight one guy.

It's better to know you can deal with an unarmed guy and presume you aren't prepared to deal with a knife than to believe you are trained to deal with a knife and find you can't even deal with one guy.
So, how does one know? That's the pickle. Isn't it? I have a theory.

Hey, no fair - giving the "I have a theory" and then not giving said theory.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top