How would you compare the grappling arts on their ability to escape the ground game?

[Gweilo]

If it's 4 or 5 attackers who are out to really attack - it's run or game over.

In the comments I made about the drills we practice, up to 4 or 5, the drill is as you rightly stated move to escape, move one adversary into anothers path, put a strike in if you can, but create space to escape, if you manage to escape in this drill, you turn and face them again, create space if you can, escape etc, Recommending to stand and fight 4 or 5 people borders on lunacy, if there is a chance to escape

 

[pdg]

Recommending to stand and fight 4 or 5 people borders on lunacy, if there is a chance to escape

If there's no chance of escape, then you might as well give it a go. Nothing to lose if you're already screwed.

But if anyone said they have a system that can reliably train you to fight a group I'd laugh and point and walk away.

if you manage to escape in this drill, you turn and face them again

Just so long as that's only part of the drill, and not the recommended method

 

[skribs]

If there's no chance of escape, then you might as well give it a go. Nothing to lose if you're already screwed.

But if anyone said they have a system that can reliably train you to fight a group I'd laugh and point and walk away.



Just so long as that's only part of the drill, and not the recommended method

I find it entirely hypocritical of a martial artist to advocate against training in a situation in which you also agree you would fight.

If you are in that situation, then having prepared for it will give you a higher chance of success.

Do you tell people to just go fight 1 on 1, or do yoh train them how? If someone goes from boxing to MMA, is it acceptable to train groundfighting by saying "if you get taken down, just fight as best you can", or do you train escapes and submission defense at the very least?

 

[pdg]

I find it entirely hypocritical of a martial artist to advocate against training in a situation in which you also agree you would fight.

If you are in that situation, then having prepared for it will give you a higher chance of success.

Do you tell people to just go fight 1 on 1, or do yoh train them how? If someone goes from boxing to MMA, is it acceptable to train groundfighting by saying "if you get taken down, just fight as best you can", or do you train escapes and submission defense at the very least?

Going into MMA from boxing is an achievable goal - with some training it's something that you stand a decent chance in, especially if you're a decent boxer in the first place.

And yes, train for 1 on 1 and for 2 on 1 - play a bit with 3 on 1 for a bit of extra pressure.

If you have 3 or 4+ absolutely clueless attackers then everything you learn in 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 will be directly applicable.

A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run).

Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.

But if you have 3 people attacking who have anything like half a clue then I don't care what your training entails, barring extreme luck you're going down.

The very best you can hope for is to get really lucky, like lottery lucky, or to take at least one down with you.

If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers then quite honestly they're selling snake oil, and it's spoiled.

 

[skribs]

Going into MMA from boxing is an achievable goal - with some training it's something that you stand a decent chance in, especially if you're a decent boxer in the first place.

And yes, train for 1 on 1 and for 2 on 1 - play a bit with 3 on 1 for a bit of extra pressure.

If you have 3 or 4+ absolutely clueless attackers then everything you learn in 1 on 1 and 2 on 1 will be directly applicable.

A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run).

Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.

But if you have 3 people attacking who have anything like half a clue then I don't care what your training entails, barring extreme luck you're going down.

The very best you can hope for is to get really lucky, like lottery lucky, or to take at least one down with you.

If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers then quite honestly they're selling snake oil, and it's spoiled.

I'm going to highlight two sentences:
Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.
If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers

These two statements are about 2 different things. You don't have to defeat 3+ attackers, just survive long enough to get away (or at the very least take one of them down with you). Also, there's a big gray area between "don't train" and "claim to reliably defeat".

You go to an MMA gym and they'll all train you to fight MMA fighters. That doesn't mean you'll reliably defeat MMA fighters. How many people join an MMA gym expecting to become champions, and how many actually achieve that goal?

You've set a bar for success that is higher than what is realistic, and then made the simple analysis that it is impossible to meet that bar. That doesn't mean that training 3+ is a waste of time.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If your goal was to use the grappling skills to escape the grapple and get back to your feet, which grappling art would you choose?

For general getting back to your feet with someone trying to hold you down, wrestling is probably best overall of the traditional grappling arts.

BJJ isn't as strong in that department, but does have good methods for getting up while avoiding strikes and submissions, which traditional wrestling lacks.

Maybe the best option would be modern MMA wrestling, which incorporates traditional wrestling, plus strike awareness, plus submission awareness, plus methods for using a wall to help stand up if you are pinned against one.

 

[pdg]

I'm going to highlight two sentences:
Serious training for vs 3+ though is an absolute waste of effort.
If anyone, anyone at all, says they can teach people how to reliably defeat 3+ determined attackers

These two statements are about 2 different things. You don't have to defeat 3+ attackers, just survive long enough to get away (or at the very least take one of them down with you). Also, there's a big gray area between "don't train" and "claim to reliably defeat".

You go to an MMA gym and they'll all train you to fight MMA fighters. That doesn't mean you'll reliably defeat MMA fighters. How many people join an MMA gym expecting to become champions, and how many actually achieve that goal?

You've set a bar for success that is higher than what is realistic, and then made the simple analysis that it is impossible to meet that bar. That doesn't mean that training 3+ is a waste of time.

You'll get a hell of a lot closer to attaining the goal of defeating or equalling a matched MMA fighter in an MMA fight by training MMA.

Training against 2 should give you what's required to escape from 3 or more, if it's a group you stand a chance against in the first place.

Because with the group that don't know what they're doing, it'll be one or two taking the lead and the other(s) hanging about trying to look hard. Take down or get away from those one or two, you'll be out of range before the other(s) make up their mind whether to actually join in.

The group that do know what they're doing, you might get one down but at the same time the others will be on you like a tramp on chips.

That's the kind of situation where it's worth having a go*, but not really worth 'training' for because no training is going to do much - unless you're in a film.

And therein lies my previous statement - if you escape, you have defeated their purpose. And again - claim to reliably defeat 3+, especially if they have a clue = snake oil.




*A guy on YouTube, talking about taking apart a failed 'sealed for life' electronic item to have a bash at fixing it - might as well give it shot, it's already f'd, you can't f it more.

 

[skribs]

Training against 2 should give you what's required to escape from 3 or more, if it's a group you stand a chance against in the first place.

By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.

 

[pdg]

By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.

If you honestly think that's what I'm even remotely saying then there's a much bigger language barrier than I ever thought.

 

[drop bear]

A bit like the Jack Reacher (mis) quote about it not being 5 against 1, it's 3 against one because you take out the leader, then have 2 enthusiastic wingmen to deal with while the last 2 run away (they always run

They really don't.

 

[drop bear]

By this logic, UFC fighters should train to beat MMA amateurs, since the same skills are required.

What techniques win UFC fights?

 

[skribs]

What techniques win UFC fights?

Technically they're the same techniques. But you of all people I would expect to know that if you're only practicing against beginners and amateurs, it's not enough to prepare for a pro-level fight.

 

[pdg]

They really don't.

Hence it being a movie quote...


Edit: and even in the film, the last two don't run away - but even so it's a series of 1v1, 2v1, 1v1, police arrive and halt the last one - so it's still not 5v1.

 

[pdg]

Technically they're the same techniques. But you of all people I would expect to know that if you're only practicing against beginners and amateurs, it's not enough to prepare for a pro-level fight.

Are you honestly not seeing the disconnect in logic between MMA training and training to defeat (the purpose of*) a group of attackers?



*Seems I have to qualify everything I say at the moment...

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Are you honestly not seeing the disconnect in logic between MMA training and training to defeat (the purpose of*) a group of attackers?



*Seems I have to qualify everything I say at the moment...

Im not fully sure i get what you're saying. Do you think certain techniques that work one on one arent worth practicing if youre concerened about a group of attackers? Or do you think since most attackers aren't trained, it doesnt matter what you learn?

 

[pdg]

Im not fully sure i get what you're saying. Do you think certain techniques that work one on one arent worth practicing if youre concerened about a group of attackers? Or do you think since most attackers aren't trained, it doesnt matter what you learn?

To summarise, and clarify the context, because it's admittedly easy to lose track... And because it appears you have utterly misinterpreted my previous posts

This is from a practical defence perspective - if entertainment, do what you want

Techniques for 1v1 (and 2v1) are the ones worth practicing.

Against a group that "aren't trained" (training in this context includes developing a strategy for your Saturday night brawls) it's more likely you'll be subject to a series of 1v1 or 2v1 as they take turns.

Escape (or beat) the first, and you've either got away, won, or you're on to the next.

Against a group that "are trained" (/practiced / they've thought about it / whatever) then the best you can do is use the 1v1 and 2v1 techniques and hope you get lucky enough. Because, quite honestly, if they've thought about it they'll be on you all at once from different directions.

There's usually the comment made about multiples, where if you concentrate on one you may miss his mate coming up behind - think about the one in front, one coming up from behind, one left, one right - all at once. What exactly is the training strategy to counter that? Line them up?


Somehow, skribs then made the ludicrous leap of equating that with hoping to be a UFC champ :/

To use that analogy - someone claiming to be able to teach legitimate 1v3+ techniques is akin to an MMA coach only teaching a handstand kick.

 

[skribs]

To summarise, and clarify the context, because it's admittedly easy to lose track... And because it appears you have utterly misinterpreted my previous posts

This is from a practical defence perspective - if entertainment, do what you want

Techniques for 1v1 (and 2v1) are the ones worth practicing.

Against a group that "aren't trained" (training in this context includes developing a strategy for your Saturday night brawls) it's more likely you'll be subject to a series of 1v1 or 2v1 as they take turns.

Escape (or beat) the first, and you've either got away, won, or you're on to the next.

Against a group that "are trained" (/practiced / they've thought about it / whatever) then the best you can do is use the 1v1 and 2v1 techniques and hope you get lucky enough. Because, quite honestly, if they've thought about it they'll be on you all at once from different directions.

There's usually the comment made about multiples, where if you concentrate on one you may miss his mate coming up behind - think about the one in front, one coming up from behind, one left, one right - all at once. What exactly is the training strategy to counter that? Line them up?


Somehow, skribs then made the ludicrous leap of equating that with hoping to be a UFC champ :/

To use that analogy - someone claiming to be able to teach legitimate 1v3+ techniques is akin to an MMA coach only teaching a handstand kick.

No.

I equated it to only practicing techniques against beginners and expecting to be a UFC champion.

 

[drop bear]

Anyway is there any evidence to support 3 0n 1 training work better than 1 0n 1 training?

 

[skribs]

Anyway is there any evidence to support 3 0n 1 training work better than 1 0n 1 training?

For dealing with multiple attackers I'd think it would be common sense. There are factors and strategies when dealing with another opponent that aren't present when fighting a single opponent.

If I'm fighting multiple people, I'm trying to use one of them as a barrier between the others. That's a concept that literally does not exist in 1-on-1.

 

[drop bear]

For dealing with multiple attackers I'd think it would be common sense. There are factors and strategies when dealing with another opponent that aren't present when fighting a single opponent.

If I'm fighting multiple people, I'm trying to use one of them as a barrier between the others. That's a concept that literally does not exist in 1-on-1.

And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?

So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.

Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.

An example of mobility drills that could be used to out position multiple attackers.