Judo For Self-Defense On The Street?

[Charlemagne]

OK, putting aside my jealousy for the moment and getting back to the topic at hand, one of the things I do like with what Gracie Barra has done in their curriculum is that they are not afraid to pull from other systems to round out their game. This seems to happen mostly in the advanced curriculum, but they are OK with adding Judo throws, Wrestling takedowns, Catch Wrestling neck cranks, and Sambo Leg Locks to their BJJ. I admit that I like this openness to other ideas, as long as it is grounded in solid fundamentals of position, and a distinction is made between sport and self-defense. As near as I can tell, their Fundamentals program is still solid Blue Belt BJJ material, with some MMA striking on the ground added in for the self-defense aspect that it brings. I don't know enough about what they do to say more than that. They also collaborate with noted Judoka such as Mike Swain from time to time.

The Ribeiro brothers have a Judo for BJJ class as well, which makes sense, and they also collaborate and even train with noted Judoka, which is cool to see.

Of course, someone should probably call Mike Swain and let him know that Gracie Barra has their history on the Gi wrong because once he hears that, there is no way he will want to train with them anymore.

 

[Steve]

I used to train with a lot of people. Back in 92, one of them, Joe, was a Jeet Kune Do Instructor. One day I stopped by to say hi as I was passing through that town. He says I should come down on Friday and plan on spending the weekend there. Says his Jits instructor is coming to teach all weekend. Some guy name of "Hickson". So I go. (Joe was a purple belt at the time) We trained Fri, Sat and Sun. Talk about open your eyes, damn. Rickson wasn't teaching us straight BJJ, rather, he was teaching us how to apply what we do while on the ground.

The following month was the same, three days training with Hickson. This time my wife came. Like the first time, there was only a handful of people. (can you imagine?) Rickson is one of the nicest people I've ever met, a true gentleman. So....while rolling on Saturday, Rickson lets my wife submit him, as he only does with women and little kids. (at least at that time) She slams him on the shoulder and barks, "Don't you dare treat me like a girl, you treat me like a black belt, I've earned that right!" Oh, Christ, my jaw drops, I'm thinking "shut up, shut up, what are you doing?" My wife is not what you would call a shy person. Rickson looks down and says, "you are right, my friend, I apologize." From that day forward he kind of adopted her. Every time he needed somebody to use to show a technique, he used her. Every time he partnered with someone for drills, he did with her. (I'm still jealous.) Worked RNC with her till the cows came home. She has one nasty choke, no foolin'.

This goes on for the following year. Every month or so, he would come in for three days. After a few months I brought my top black belts. After a while I had him come to my dojo. I limited the classes to thirty people, about a hundred were watching. It was nuts. The following month I had him back again to teach my police department. I had told the bosses "we need to seriously change our DT program."
Again, he wasn't teaching pure BJJ, but rather, how to do what we do while on the ground, and how to control people. After that weekend they gave me Carte Blanche to do whatever the hell I wanted to in DT. It was sweet!

When the first UFC came on tv, I was with a big group of guys to watch it. Everyone started to bet on who would win. When I saw Rickson's kid brother was fighting, I covered all bets. They thought I was crazy. I almost felt guilty. Almost. I won eight hundred bucks.

A couple years later my wife and I moved to Maui. Our dogs were in quarantine. (standard procedure)
Rickson had told us his brother teaches there. We went to the University of Hawaii to train with Relson. Eventually ended up going to his house and taking privates from one of his purple belts in his garage.

When quarantine was over we moved to Maui. Rickson had a school there at the time. Romalo Barros, Rickson's first black, belt ran it. It was a whole lot of fun.

I've often said I was the luckiest person in the world when it came to Martial Arts. And I ain;t kidding when I say that. Just in the right place at the right time for some unknown reason. Consider this - the first three Jits guys I ever rolled with were Rickson, Relson and Romalo. I mean, WTF, I don't deserve that...but I'll take it.

Here's a couple pics you might get a kick out of.

My wife and her teacher.

My sergeant, who benched 500 pounds at the time, and wrestled his whole life. Rickson treated him like a baby. Honest to God, like a baby cradled in his arms.

I have another pic that's really cool, one of the oddest experiences rolling I've ever had. I'll see if I can find it. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Sorry for the long post.

This is an awesome story.

 

[lklawson]

90% of all fights go to the ground.

The "90% of all fights go to the ground" Myth examined and deconstructed

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

the majority of the fights I have been in have gone to the ground.

Not exactly a scientifically sound "Data Sample." I've spoken with people who claim that they've been in countless fights and never once were they, personally, on the ground.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Don't know where it came from, or who started it. I don't think it is unique to the Gracie family though.

I do. I did a lot of research on it. Wrote an article. Posted said article here.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Charlemagne]

Not exactly a scientifically sound "Data Sample."

Didn't claim it was.

 

[lklawson]

The methodology behind that stat is if there's people fighting one another, they're going to start striking each other, then clinch, then attempt to wrestle each other to the ground, then attempt to control on the ground. That methodology comes from Maeda, not the Gracie clan.

No. That's not where the Statistic came from. It may be what the "theory of combat" came from but it was definitely used to promote that theory of combat yet not the source of it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Charlemagne]

I do. I did a lot of research on it. Wrote an article. Posted said article here.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thanks.

I would hold back and the claim that you have done "research" on this. What was written in that article is not research, not at all. There are research designs which examine what others have done, namely Systematic or Meta-Analytic Reviews, and what you did does not meet the criteria for either of those designs.

In regards to the actual information presented, at best, your article suggests that the claim of 90%, or even the claim of most, may be incorrect. It certainly doesn't prove that, nor does it even suggest that the opposite claim is true (most fights stay standing). Absence of data in one direction does not equal data in the opposite. In fact, what you wrote supports their claim in a way that you did not intend. The statement that the UFC's and the Gracie in Action challenge fights were not about street fights but rather about trained martial artists is true. What that suggests is that trained martial artists who had been practicing their craft for years, and knew ahead of time that they were going to be fighting ground specialists, were unable to stop themselves from being taken to the ground. In addition, your statement of "probably false" is unfounded, and should be removed from your article if you want to have even the veneer of credibility. You cannot in one sentence make the claim that we really don't know, and then in another place claim that a particular number is probably wrong.

What someone really has to ask themselves is in this day and age, given all that has happened in martial arts over the past 20 years or so is, do you believe that someone who claims to be training for self-defense, but has no ground game other than some sort of "anti-grappling", is actually as prepared as they should be. I don't. Others will have to make their own decision. Your article suggests that you have, and that is good to see.

 

[lklawson]

Thanks.

I would hold back and the claim that you have done "research" on this. What was written in that article is not research, not at all. There are research designs which examine what others have done, namely Systematic or Meta-Analytic Reviews, and what you did does not meet the criteria for either of those designs.

Historical Research (reading documents, "interviewing" people, etc.) No, I didn't set up a scientific study to test a hypothesis, but if you're going to gripe at me about my use of the term, then you should also gripe at my friends who are Professors in History departments or go gripe at professional writers who "research" their stories.

In regards to the actual information presented, at best, your article suggests that the claim of 90%, or even the claim of most, may be incorrect.

That's right. Because no one knows the actual statistic is. You saw that, right?

It certainly doesn't prove that, nor does it even suggest that the opposite claim is true (most fights stay standing).

What the hell are you on about? I certainly didn't write that. I wrote where the claim came from, based on "research" of the primaries who made the claim and then I wrote that there is currently no way to actually put a statistic to how many fights go to the ground one way or another.

I think you got so caught up in proving your Scientific Credentials by myopically limiting the term research into an experimental field that you didn't really bother reading the article for content. Certainly not if you somehow think that I wrote that most fights stay standing.

Absence of data in one direction does not equal data in the opposite.

That's nice. Now go actually read the article and find out what it actually said.

In fact, what you wrote supports their claim in a way that you did not intend.

And... umm... what exactly is the claim you think I was advancing? Do you need a hint?

The statement that the UFC's and the Gracie in Action challenge fights were not about street fights but rather about trained martial artists is true. What that suggests is that trained martial artists who had been practicing their craft for years, and knew ahead of time that they were going to be fighting ground specialists, were unable to stop themselves from being taken to the ground.

That's what you think the article was about?!?! You got so caught up in being smart that you forgot to see what was being said.

In addition, your statement of "probably false" is unfounded, and should be removed from your article if you want to have even the veneer of credibility. You cannot in one sentence make the claim that we really don't know, and then in another place claim that a particular number is probably wrong.

Well, first, friend, if it seems that I'm not too worried about whether or not you think I'm "credible," then you get a gold star on your lab coat. Second, simple stats indicates that one point out of an infinite linear progression has an infinite-to-one chance of being accurate. But even if we reduce it to only whole numbers in the 0%-100% scale, 90 is only one out of 100. Put your propeller hat on and tell me what are the odds for 1/100 because, apparently, I'm having trouble with that.

What someone really has to ask themselves is in this day and age, given all that has happened in martial arts over the past 20 years or so is, do you believe that someone who claims to be training for self-defense, but has no ground game other than some sort of "anti-grappling", is actually as prepared as they should be. I don't. Others will have to make their own decision. Your article suggests that you have, and that is good to see.

Who gives a crap? Apparently you don't because that was the very last paragraph of the article, which you would have known if you hadn't been working so hard at proving how smart you are and, instead, actually read what was written.

Hopefully you'll respond reasonably and we can move on, but experience has shown me that you probably won't. Most of the time when I see people on the net beating their chests about how smart they are, it's a dead conversation.

 

[Charlemagne]

Historical Research (reading documents, "interviewing" people, etc.) No, I didn't set up a scientific study to test a hypothesis, but if you're going to gripe at me about my use of the term, then you should also gripe at my friends who are Professors in History departments or go gripe at professional writers who "research" their stories.

Historians, and I am sure your friends would fall into this category, follow an established method with standards in regards to what evidence is used, how it is analyzed, interpreted, etc. That's why they get to use use the term.

That's right. Because no one knows the actual statistic is. You saw that, right?

Yes I did, I see now looking again that you said "possibly false' instead of just "false". I missed that the first time around.

I think you got so caught up in proving your Scientific Credentials by myopically limiting the term research into an experimental field that you didn't really bother reading the article for content. Certainly not if you somehow think that I wrote that most fights stay standing.

And I think you came into the thread looking to show how more you know than anyone else by claiming "I did a lot of research on it". And when you got called on what you wrote not being research, you are upset.

That's nice. Now go actually read the article and find out what it actually said.

I did, and I admitted the error that I made.

That's what you think the article was about?!?! You got so caught up in being smart that you forgot to see what was being said.

I saw exactly what you said. You made the statement that the Gracie in Action tapes being between trained martial artists in prearranged matches does not translate to street fights with the average person. I agree, but as I noted, I believe it shows that even in trained persons, who know what is coming, that being taken to the ground is very hard to avoid. That was my point. I wasn't disagreeing with your information, just looking at what it means from a different perspective.

Well, first, friend, if it seems that I'm not too worried about whether or not you think I'm "credible," then you get a gold star on your lab coat. Second, simple stats indicates that one point out of an infinite linear progression has an infinite-to-one chance of being accurate. But even if we reduce it to only whole numbers in the 0%-100% scale, 90 is only one out of 100. Put your propeller hat on and tell me what are the odds for 1/100 because, apparently, I'm having trouble with that.

I agree that we don't have reliable data to base percentages on. However, we are talking about the percentage of things which have happened in the past, not the probability of a random number being selected between 0 - 100 in the future, but I get your point, and agree with it.

Who gives a crap? Apparently you don't because that was the very last paragraph of the article, which you would have known if you hadn't been working so hard at proving how smart you are and, instead, actually read what was written.

Yes, it was the last part of the article. I agreed with what you wrote.

Hopefully you'll respond reasonably and we can move on, but experience has shown me that you probably won't. Most of the time when I see people on the net beating their chests about how smart they are, it's a dead conversation.

There is someone who came into this thread beating their chest about how smart they are. He looks a great deal like the guy wrote this:

• I do. I did a lot of research on it. Wrote an article. Posted said article here.

Having said that, I admit that I could have handled things a bit better in my response to you as well. We've both had our moments, and I would rather move on to a more productive discussion if you are willing.

 

[Ironbear24]

I believe it shows that even in trained persons, who know what is coming, that being taken to the ground is very hard to avoid.

It is still really great for their advertising campaign because the gracies had experience in Vale Tudo competitions, that was pretty much mma so they were dealing with grapplers and strikers alike, the challengers more than often only dealt with the striker.

So it was more of a case of extremely experienced jiu jitsu guys vs various people.

 

[Charlemagne]

It is still really great for their advertising campaign because the gracies had experience in Vale Tudo competitions, that was pretty much mma so they were dealing with grapplers and strikers alike, the challengers more than often only dealt with the striker.

So it was more of a case of extremely experienced jiu jitsu guys vs various people.

I agree with your first part, but I am not sure I understand your point from "that was pretty much MMA..." on. Can you clarify?

 

[Ironbear24]

I agree with your first part, but I am not sure I understand your point from "that was pretty much MMA..." on. Can you clarify?

Vale Tudo had little to no rules and had grappling and striking.

 

[Charlemagne]

Vale Tudo had little to no rules and had grappling and striking.

OK. I totally agree with your point then, I just thought I was missing something.

Just got done training, so I am beat, and my mind isn't working! Mea culpla.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So who knows what other B.S. they're perpetrating?

I actually have an issue with this, but from a different angle. The actual misinformation about the gi is fairly harmless. Hell, nearly every school I trained in reported some myth about the uniform (belts simply got dirty until they're black, for example). My problem is the lack of looking into the background and understanding where things came from. I think there's real value in understanding some of these things - the same sort of value we find in the information that comes out of silly "basic research" studies, which often lead to things like Velcro. Not researching and learning the background of an art (and even things like the uniform, so as to understand that this sign is inaccurate) leads me to expect the instructor to simply parrot what he/she was taught, rather than digging for deep understanding and teaching what's appropriate for each student.

The sign is simply a potential indicator of a larger symptom, IMO. If there's more like that, I'd avoid that instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The methodology behind that stat is if there's people fighting one another, they're going to start striking each other, then clinch, then attempt to wrestle each other to the ground, then attempt to control on the ground. That methodology comes from Maeda, not the Gracie clan.

In your case, the fights ended in the second or third phase for whatever reason which is perfectly fine. Bjj 's methodology is that if you're dealing with someone physically much stronger than you, and they take you to the ground, then your ground skill will save you. On the flip side, you could be skillful enough to take them down on your terms and your ground skill will allow you to dominate them from that range.

The entire point of Bjj is to never let someone dominate YOU while you're on the ground. The most lethal damage in an encounter usually happens from that range.

This is a much more cogent explanation (and argument) than usual version. This reflects why I work on ground work in my own training and with students. And it makes a better case for the BJJ approach than many of the over-committed proponents I've met.

 

[Charlemagne]

I actually have an issue with this, but from a different angle. The actual misinformation about the gi is fairly harmless. Hell, nearly every school I trained in reported some myth about the uniform (belts simply got dirty until they're black, for example). My problem is the lack of looking into the background and understanding where things came from. I think there's real value in understanding some of these things - the same sort of value we find in the information that comes out of silly "basic research" studies, which often lead to things like Velcro. Not researching and learning the background of an art (and even things like the uniform, so as to understand that this sign is inaccurate) leads me to expect the instructor to simply parrot what he/she was taught, rather than digging for deep understanding and teaching what's appropriate for each student.

The sign is simply a potential indicator of a larger symptom, IMO. If there's more like that, I'd avoid that instructor.

The sign is the same at every Gracie Barra location in the English speaking world I imagine. They were put together by someone higher up in their corporate structure, and the local instructor has zero to do with it.

I get your points, and even agree with many of them, I just don't that part to be misunderstood.

Cheers,

 

[Hanzou]

It is still really great for their advertising campaign because the gracies had experience in Vale Tudo competitions, that was pretty much mma so they were dealing with grapplers and strikers alike, the challengers more than often only dealt with the striker.

So it was more of a case of extremely experienced jiu jitsu guys vs various people.

They dealt with more strikers because striking was far more popular in American MA than grappling. That was largely thanks to Bruce Lee and other martial arts movie stars who popularized flashy striking and taking down 20 people all by themselves. The vast majority of people believed that you could simply knock out a wrestler or a Judoka with a few well placed blows.

The first UFC completely demolished that belief and that's why it's considered a pivotal moment in the history of martial arts here in America.

As for your argument that it was "more experienced JJ guys vs various people", many of the opponents that popped up in the Gracie in action duels and the UFC were professional fighters and instructors. To pretend like they were just some "bums off the street" is complete nonsense.

 

[Ironbear24]

They dealt with more strikers because striking was far more popular in American MA than grappling. That was largely thanks to Bruce Lee and other martial arts movie stars who popularized flashy striking and taking down 20 people all by themselves. The vast majority of people believed that you could simply knock out a wrestler or a Judoka with a few well placed blows.

The first UFC completely demolished that belief and that's why it's considered a pivotal moment in the history of martial arts here in America.

As for your argument that it was "more experienced JJ guys vs various people", many of the opponents that popped up in the Gracie in action duels and the UFC were professional fighters and instructors. To pretend like they were just some "bums off the street" is complete nonsense.

I never said they weren't talented. I said they were ill prepared, when you got a family who has been competing in similar competitions for years vs people who only fought in their own bubble, well you know what will happen.

The karateka often fought with only other strikers and the boxer often only fought other boxers and so on.

 

[Charlemagne]

The "groin" argument has been brought up earlier in the thread, and in fact, it seems to come up anytime the topic of grappling and self-defense is under discussion. First of all, as many have noted, a groin strike is not some sort of skeleton key. Secondly, against an experienced grappler who knows how to control your arms and manage distance, they aren't as easy to pull off as one might think. Neither are bites.