JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
Twinfist,
would you care to explain why you feel this way?
would you care to explain why you feel this way?
McDojo?
- Thread starter PaperPlateMan
- Start date
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
"submission" means they give up. so you stop.
submission arts, that is arts that are not designed to DESTROY the attackers ability to attack are foolish for self defense, since they are designed for you to stop whatever you are doing and allow the bad guy to give up.
and you let go
and he changes his mind, and BAM you are in another fight with a NOW pissed off attacker.
seems like a flaw in the whole premise of the "self defense" concept, since bad guys DO NOT GIVE UP and say "hey, you got me, i will go rape someone else"
submission arts, that is arts that are not designed to DESTROY the attackers ability to attack are foolish for self defense, since they are designed for you to stop whatever you are doing and allow the bad guy to give up.
and you let go
and he changes his mind, and BAM you are in another fight with a NOW pissed off attacker.
seems like a flaw in the whole premise of the "self defense" concept, since bad guys DO NOT GIVE UP and say "hey, you got me, i will go rape someone else"
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
It means more along the line of you controling your opponent. In a self defense situation you do not have to stop anything but are in a dominant control setting resulting in the opponent being submitted and unable to move or attack similar to being pinned,restrained.
This is basically saying Judo,BJJ,Jujutsu,Aikido,and any art that allows submission holds like chokes,jointlocks,restraints are inferior. If you are submitting the opponent you are destroying your opponents ability to attack. Are you talking in terms of putting on a joint lock allowing the opponent to tap and then letting go? You do not have to let the attacker up you can still put on pressure,restraint,choke on the opponent you can choke the person out,break the joint,or put yourself in a superior position to knock the opponent out.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
yes
jointlocks=bad
chokes=bad
restraints=bad
and i might add:
judo=sport and useless vs multiples
bjj=sport and useless vs multiples
Jjitsu isnt really a sport (depending on Ryu, some are sport) but is still useless vs multiples
aikido i believe can be usefull for self defense, after about 20 years practice.
I am not a believer in "nice guy" self defense.
I believe in breaking limbs, destroying joints, and knocking people out cold.
This is MY philosophy of self defense, i know many dont agree, and thats fine. I dont care. Please, if you are thinking of converting or 'educating" me, dont.
for one thing, it is off topic, and for another you would be wasting your time.
myusername
Brown Belt
Then you should really be a big fan of Jujutsu! It's primary purpose is to do all of these things.
myusername
Brown Belt
Come on now twinfist, your comments are very similar to people who reckon that TKD is all flashy high kicks! As a fellow ITF (based) TKD'er you know that this would just be people generalising to fulfill their need to put TKD down. You know that TKD is much more than that generalisation being an instructor of a top notch traditional school (I've seen your videos on other threads and was impressed). What you are doing with jujutsu is no different than those who bash TKD.
In my jujutsu class our grappling is very much about how to get up on your feet as quickly as possible. It has an emphasis on striking target areas that interfere with the attackers air supply, blood supply and conciousness. There are alot of jujutsu schools that deal with proper self defence rather than just rolling around for the tap just like there are many TKD schools that teach proper self defence rather than just flashy spinning high kicking. I am fortunate enough to belong to excellent TKD and Jujutsu schools and I rate both systems highly.
JadecloudAlchemist
Master of Arts
There is Sport Judo and the same techniques are taught for self defense.
Seoi Nage can be a throw or a break and then a throw depending on how you want to do it. Judo does have Atemi and there is no reason a Judoka can not use strikes to set up a throw. There is also no reason a Judoka can not use an opponent to create space and distancing and use quick sweeps,strikes,and throws. The same goes for BJJ. A BJJ player does not have to take it to the ground if he practices standup along with his BJJ.
I really can not think of any Jujutsu that was designed for sport. Even BJJ was at first a martial art for defense before the more sporting side developed.
Depends on how you train and your teacher. The Tenshin Aikido and Nihon Goshin Aikido among other styles will disagree.
You are free to have your opinion and your method of protecting yourself.
Have no intention. Your opinion is as valid as mine.
Let's remember that there's a time and a place for everything. Jujutsu was developed for armoured samurai to use either with their left hand while their right held a sword, or when disarmed and facing an armoured opponent. The less-than-lethal techniques are still good for those who must restrain an arrestee, a mental patient, etc., and of course there are more-dangerous techniques also.
Overwhelmingly when you hear that a blind person has defended himself, it's with Judo or a close variant. The sport aspect cuts two ways: Yes, it limits the techniques, but it fosters aggressiveness and a winning attitude, and the person who does it well can be reasonably confident in his ability to make those techniques work for him. (Western boxing and Muay Thai are "just" sports, after all.) But if your art depends on a neck-breaking technique you always practice in slow-mo and must stop practicing 75% of the way through the technique, how can you know you can depend on it?
I agree that these arts are less valuable vs. multiple opponents than many others, but even with multiple opponents you might still get tackled to the ground. As stated above, it's usual to emphasize how important it is to get back up quickly and to practice ways to do so (as my BJJ instructor always did). Sport and self-defense goals are different. Of course, the BJJ rejoinder is that no art is going to give you great odds against a group attack.
I more-or-less agree with this. It takes a lot longer to make it functional.
The first two are a jujutsu specialty, no?
Submission arts use techniques that cause a practice partner to submit rather than have a joint broken or be choked out. you choose to let them submit rather than be injured. That seems OK to me. You can't always really hit your practice partner, but you can always choke them nearly unconscious.
You're classifying a lot of things absolutely -- but there are plenty of people who can show you the difference between sport/practice and real application. A move that in practice and training stops at a lock becomes a break in real application. Or the lock or hold is held until the person truly surrenders, not just gives up. The difference is in how you train -- not the style. And several of those styles do have tactics for dealing with multiple attackers... they just aren't often demonstrated today.
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
sigh
ok, now to be fair, what i posted in the first place stands.
that being said, I am now studying Kajukembo, in part because i know i want to open up my arsenal to include some new things.
but i will never RELY on chokes, joint locks, or chokes.
and I will never roll around on the ground by choice.
Joint locks are very hard to get if you haven't softened the person up a bit first. I still believe what my first Karate instructor told me while teaching a kick to the side of the knee: A man that can't stand can't fight. Broken bones make a great defense against the PCP maniac, because it doesn't matter whether he feels pain or not--it's simple biomechanics. But there's a time and a place for everything. Against a knifer, distance may keep me from getting in a solid shot but I might be able to control that arm and lock it...at least, control it enough that I can get in some solid knee shots.
I too don't want to go to the ground if avoidable but it clearly happens enough to want to be prepared.
