MMA vs TMA

[jks9199]

You know what we need. We as a community on martial talk, need to put money together and invite special guests in. Say A few really top notch Army and Marine H2H instructors and some Top notch Federal trainers and LEO trainers and the various Civil guys that make the rounds. Get them to come on here and do a Q&A.

Um... A number of us ARE those sorts. We may not all be big names like Tony Blauer, Jim Wagner or Rory Miller... but several of us are qualified DT instructors, as well as working LE officers. Names don't equal real knowledge (Blauer has no personal experience, though he's done a lot of research and put together a very solid approach, Wagner's history has problems... I'll vouch for Rory, though, as having been there, done it & able to teach it.)

 

[Dinkydoo]

Though you probably won't have to worry about a Bjj person, you should be concerned about wrestlers, UFC wannabes, and ex football players. All of those groups are fully capable of taking you down, slamming you down, and beating the crap out of you. There's also a good chance that they'll be stronger than you as well.

Living in the UK means that I don't really need to worry about those groups of people either; although I do agree that 'ground and pound' for relatively unskilled, teenage fighters seems to be a popular strategy (I haven't ever seen anyone go to ground on purpose in a bar). A strategy that does work against other untrained fighters but I've personally seen what can happen when the larger guy attempts this manoeuvre when the defender starts swinging fists, elbows, knees and feet at his head. If the 'ground and pounder' is not conditioned to take a full force knee or elbow to the face (and lets face it, not many people are - myself included) then the brute force tactic of slamming might not go down so well. Add to that, the striker has had training in a striking art that has taught them how to use their opponents energy against them and suddenly the little guy has the odds stacked in their favour. Now, you may argue that a BJJ guy wouldn't allow themselves to be smashed in the face whilst going for a takedown, but I'm not really talking about those guys - and I'd disagree with the generalisation anyway

You didn't answer my question:

Are you really taught in BJJ that you MUST take your opponent to ground?

I'm genuinely curious because I haven't been trained in it, and if that is the case then it sounds like a ridiculously unrealistic training method, for something that has practically been described as the 'be all and end all' of self defence on this thread, by yourself.

 

[Hanzou]

You didn't answer my question:

Are you really taught in BJJ that you MUST take your opponent to ground?

I'm genuinely curious because I haven't been trained in it, and if that is the case then it sounds like a ridiculously unrealistic training method, for something that has practically been described as the 'be all and end all' of self defence on this thread, by yourself.

Ridiculously unrealistic, yet numerous people have used it in street fight situations and have done just fine? Bjj was raised in Brazil, a very violent place. For it to garner the reputation it earned, and for it to smash other martial arts at home and abroad, it had to be doing something right. Part of "doing something right" is taking your adversary to the ground where they are weaker and you are stronger.

 

[MJS]

I'm sure there are, but I've seen a lot of altercations that end up on the ground naturally, or two guys wrestling for control/takedown. Being able to grapple and fight from any position is a stupidly big advantage in a fight.

I agree...having the edge over someone, regardless of whether its size, strength, a better puncher, etc, is always a plus. But as I've said, the posts in this thread that I've read, since I began posting, seem to paint you as a big advocate of going to the ground or grappling with someone.

So, to ask again, in your opinion, would there be any situations in which you personally would not go to the ground? If you feel that there are, then I'd have to ask why you seem to be such a big advocate of it in the majority of situations?

 

[MJS]

Ridiculously unrealistic, yet numerous people have used it in street fight situations and have done just fine? Bjj was raised in Brazil, a very violent place. For it to garner the reputation it earned, and for it to smash other martial arts at home and abroad, it had to be doing something right. Part of "doing something right" is taking your adversary to the ground where they are weaker and you are stronger.

And as I said, in Brazil, you have 2 people, standing in a circle of others, so they can fight, with none of the others standing around, joining in. Rare that you see that today, in the US. I think, given your reply here, you pretty much answered the question that I already asked you twice. IMO, reading your posts, I'm going to say that you would opt to go to the ground in every situation.

 

[Hanzou]

I agree...having the edge over someone, regardless of whether its size, strength, a better puncher, etc, is always a plus. But as I've said, the posts in this thread that I've read, since I began posting, seem to paint you as a big advocate of going to the ground or grappling with someone.

So, to ask again, in your opinion, would there be any situations in which you personally would not go to the ground? If you feel that there are, then I'd have to ask why you seem to be such a big advocate of it in the majority of situations?

Considering that going to the ground is my strength, and where I have the most skill, I would more than likely use that ability in a confrontation. Especially since there is a pretty high chance that the person I'm going against doesn't have the same level of skill that I do on the ground.

Is there a time I wouldn't use it? Probably not. If you've exhausted all other avenues of avoding conflict, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

And as I said, in Brazil, you have 2 people, standing in a circle of others, so they can fight, with none of the others standing around, joining in. Rare that you see that today, in the US. I think, given your reply here, you pretty much answered the question that I already asked you twice. IMO, reading your posts, I'm going to say that you would opt to go to the ground in every situation.

Don't confuse a Bjj class in Brazil with a street fight in Brazil. Brazil has ghettos that make some of the worst areas of the U.S. look like Disney Land in comparison. Any martial art coming out of Brazil with a reputation like Gracie JJ or BJJ is an MA that has throughly earned its reputation.

 

[MJS]

Considering that going to the ground is my strength, and where I have the most skill, I would more than likely use that ability in a confrontation. Especially since there is a pretty high chance that the person I'm going against doesn't have the same level of skill that I do on the ground.

Is there a time I wouldn't use it? Probably not. If you've exhausted all other avenues of avoding conflict, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

Well, to each their own, but IMO, that's pretty foolish.

Don't confuse a Bjj class in Brazil with a street fight in Brazil. Brazil has ghettos that make some of the worst areas of the U.S. look like Disney Land in comparison. Any martial art coming out of Brazil with a reputation like Gracie JJ or BJJ is an MA that has throughly earned its reputation.

Well, if you say so, but since the Gracies are such great marketing guru's, who are known for posting numerous challenge match clips, you'd figure if it was anything different, that they'd have posted it.

Like I've said countless times...the MMA vs. TMA debate is old...very, very old. Frankly it gets boring. You or I or anyone else, is highly unlikely to change the minds, and personally, that is not my intent not, or ever. I'm happy with what I train, and I don't force anyone to change. I've openly said that MMA/BJJ is good, but it's certainly not the end all, be all.

Edit: Just to add to this...there are many arts out there, other than BJJ, than have earned their reputation. Brazil isn't the only place in the world that puts out quality arts.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Ridiculously unrealistic, yet numerous people have used it in street fight situations and have done just fine? Bjj was raised in Brazil, a very violent place. For it to garner the reputation it earned, and for it to smash other martial arts at home and abroad, it had to be doing something right. Part of "doing something right" is taking your adversary to the ground where they are weaker and you are stronger.

"Ridiculously unrealistic" in the sense that you openly admit to only training for one eventuality - when is anything in life ever that straight forward?

What happens when an attacker knows a bit about grappling and successfully evades/counters your takedown attempts, is that the fight effectively won, time to run away?

Just to make this even clearer (not that i should have to): I'm not questioning the effectiveness of BJJ - I'm sure it's been used to great effect in SD situations - it's the training methodology that you're telling me your school follows to the letter that I'm concerned about.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Is there a time I wouldn't use it? Probably not. If you've exhausted all other avenues of avoding conflict, then you gotta do what you gotta do.
.

So, good TMA schools should eradicate old training methods because, well, they're old (and you don't understand them), but at the same time you don't think there is ever really a time where you shouldn't take an opponent to ground...

This irony right here is what is undermining your entire argument. I believe I mentioned something about you having a 'closed mind' in my early posts on this thread, whilst literally accusing TMAs of the same thing - several pages later, and its only gotten worse.

 

[ballen0351]

Any martial art coming out of Brazil with a reputation like Gracie JJ or BJJ is an MA that has throughly earned its reputation.

Or benefited from some really good marketing

 

[Hanzou]

Well, to each their own, but IMO, that's pretty foolish.

Its foolish to use my strongest skills in an attack? Okay....

Well, if you say so, but since the Gracies are such great marketing guru's, who are known for posting numerous challenge match clips, you'd figure if it was anything different, that they'd have posted it.

They're also known for backing up their claims, and putting their money where their mouths are.

Like I've said countless times...the MMA vs. TMA debate is old...very, very old. Frankly it gets boring. You or I or anyone else, is highly unlikely to change the minds, and personally, that is not my intent not, or ever. I'm happy with what I train, and I don't force anyone to change. I've openly said that MMA/BJJ is good, but it's certainly not the end all, be all.

No one was claiming that. The very nature of mixed martial arts kind of contradicts that notion.

Edit: Just to add to this...there are many arts out there, other than BJJ, than have earned their reputation. Brazil isn't the only place in the world that puts out quality arts.

No one was claiming that either.

 

[Hanzou]

"Ridiculously unrealistic" in the sense that you openly admit to only training for one eventuality - when is anything in life ever that straight forward?

What happens when an attacker knows a bit about grappling and successfully evades/counters your takedown attempts, is that the fight effectively won, time to run away?

You mean what happens when I run into someone who is a better fighter than I am? I'm probably going to lose or die. That's a pretty silly question.

Just to make this even clearer (not that i should have to): I'm not questioning the effectiveness of BJJ - I'm sure it's been used to great effect in SD situations - it's the training methodology that you're telling me your school follows to the letter that I'm concerned about.

You're not questioning the effectiveness of Bjj, but you question my training methodology which comes from Bjj?

That makes sense....

 

[ballen0351]

Here's the thing anyone over the age of 25 shouldn't be getting into random fights. I have not even been close to getting into a fight since I got out of the USMC. Other then work but most people dont have a job like mine.

So if you find yourself needing to actually defend yourself for real from becoming victim of violence Im not talking about some random bar fight but real violence. Going to the ground makes it impossible to run away, makes it impossible to defend against more then one attacker, makes it impossible to keep up with your family who I also hope you have told to run. While you laying on the ground going for this sub or that choke, you have lost all mobility and ability to assess your surroundings and react to new threats.
But
Even in my young and dumb days in the military where a good fight was a weekly occurrence it always involved Lots of Alcohol, and one of my friends starting a fight with some other guy and his friends. It usually occurred in a bar or street with lots of other drunk and rowdy spectators. None of that lends itself well to getting on the ground.

Bjj has its place should you find your self on the ground, but going there in purpose is just not smart. Sure if its one on one and there are no outside factors then go for it. Just normally doesnt happen that way.

Han Id like to see your thoughts on some of my points I made here.

 

[Dinkydoo]

You mean what happens when I run into someone who is a better fighter than I am? I'm probably going to lose or die. That's a pretty silly question.

No that wasn't what I was asking. All good fighters have a 'plan B', what is yours if you come up against a better grappler?

If I come up against a faster, stronger, more accurate striker than myself (even in sparring) I change strategy - *inner monologue* ok, he's quicker than me (not much point in trying to match 'blow for blow') lets try to stick to a few of his strikes and see how he reacts....oh, yep, there's the opening I was looking for. The style I train in teaches so much more than pure striking so that I can adapt myself and I don't believe for one second that good BJJ purely teaches techniques that can only be applied on the ground - joint manipulation is joint manipulation after all, regardless of context.

The fact that you're not even considering this tells me that you are not only vastly under qualified to judge what REALLY is effective (or not) in a self defence situation but you also appear to be participating in limited training methods.

You're not questioning the effectiveness of Bjj, but you question my training methodology which comes from Bjj?

That makes sense....

Does all BJJ teach that you HAVE to take an opponent to ground?

 

[Hanzou]

No that wasn't what I was asking. All good fighters have a 'plan B', what is yours if you come up against a better grappler?

If I come up against a faster, stronger, more accurate striker than myself (even in sparring) I change strategy - *inner monologue* ok, he's quicker than me (not much point in trying to match 'blow for blow') lets try to stick to a few of his strikes and see how he reacts....oh, yep, there's the opening I was looking for. The style I train in teaches so much more than pure striking so that I can adapt myself and I don't believe for one second that good BJJ purely teaches techniques that can only be applied on the ground - joint manipulation is joint manipulation after all, regardless of context.

Okay, but your argument is that you're fighting against someone who is better than you are at what you do best. So chances are that you're going to lose, unless you get lucky, or the superior fighter is having a bad day, and you're having a good one. It's like asking a boxer what's their plan B if they're fighting a better boxer. It's a pretty silly question, because 9 times out of 10, someone who hits you faster, stronger, and more accurately than you do is going to beat you.

I don't know where you got the notion that I said that Bjj only teaches ground techs. Heck, you have to get the opponent to the ground in the first place. Some of that requires striking, some of that requires throws, some of that requires takedowns.

The fact that you're not even considering this tells me that you are not only vastly under qualified to judge what REALLY is effective (or not) in a self defence situation but you also appear to be participating in limited training methods.

What exactly am I not considering?

Does all BJJ teach that you HAVE to take an opponent to ground?

No, but the ground is where we have the most fun.

Han Id like to see your thoughts on some of my points I made here.

Will do. I'll respond shortly.

 

[Dinkydoo]

Okay, but your argument is that you're fighting against someone who is better than you are at what you do best. So chances are that you're going to lose, unless you get lucky, or the superior fighter is having a bad day, and you're having a good one. It's like asking a boxer what's their plan B if they're fighting a better boxer. It's a pretty silly question, because 9 times out of 10, someone who hits you faster, stronger, and more accurately than you do is going to beat you.

If you only train for one eventuality, the chances are, you're going to lose - regardless of whether the person you were fighting with is better than you or not. That is my point.

I don't know where you got the notion that I said that Bjj only teaches ground techs. Heck, you have to get the opponent to the ground in the first place. Some of that requires striking, some of that requires throws, some of that requires takedowns.

You said that you probably don't think there is any self defence situation that would make you not want to take an opponent to ground. Therefore, it's not the individual techniques of the BJJ you've learned that I'm criticising, it is the methodology. Is there anything that you think you could apply effectively standing up? If so, then why are you taught to ALWAYS go to ground?

What exactly am I not considering?

The possibility that you might fight someone bigger and stronger who just won't go to ground (some people have a naturally strong root!). If they wont go to ground then, by your own admission, you don't have a strategy to deal with them.

No, but the ground is where we have the most fun.

Self defence isn't usually fun.

 

[Hanzou]

@Ballen,

When I say "take someone to the ground" I'm not talking about always pulling guard, or laying on top of someone. I'm talking about getting someone to hit the ground. Once someone has hit the ground, that is when I determine what to do next. If he is no longer a threat, I'll leave. If I need to do some more work, then I'll do that.

in short, my goal isn't to stand there and brawl with someone. My goal is to throw someone down and either knock them out from the throws impact, or control them on the ground.

 

[Hanzou]

If you only train for one eventuality, the chances are, you're going to lose - regardless of whether the person you were fighting with is better than you or not. That is my point.

If the guy is better than you, chances are you're going to lose. It doesn't matter what you train. Again, you're putting forth a pretty silly argument here.

You said that you probably don't think there is any self defence situation that would make you not want to take an opponent to ground. Therefore, it's not the individual techniques of the BJJ you've learned that I'm criticising, it is the methodology. Is there anything that you think you could apply effectively standing up? If so, then why are you taught to ALWAYS go to ground?

I'm pretty sure I said that Bjj has numerous techs for takedowns. I suppose you must not understand what I mean when I said "take someone to the ground". If I preform an Osoto Gari on someone and their head hits the concrete and they're unconscious, I've "taken the guy to the ground". From Osoto Gari, I could immediately transition into an armbar, a pin, or I could just walk away. You'd be surprised how many people don't know how to break fall.

The possibility that you might fight someone bigger and stronger who just won't go to ground (some people have a naturally strong root!). If they wont go to ground then, by your own admission, you don't have a strategy to deal with them.

If they're not going to the ground, then I've done something wrong technique-wise. Judo/Bjj throws and takedowns are based on leverage and balance, not strength or size. Unless I'm going against a black belt in Judo, they're going to get tossed or taken down.

 

[Dinkydoo]

If the guy is better than you, chances are you're going to lose. It doesn't matter what you train. Again, you're putting forth a pretty silly argument here.

If the guy is better than you at ONE thing, it sounds like you're going to lose. I might lose against a better striker, but I have enough variation in my training to at least try something else.

I'm pretty sure I said that Bjj has numerous techs for takedowns. I suppose you must not understand what I mean when I said "take someone to the ground". If I preform an Osoto Gari on someone and their head hits the concrete and they're unconscious, I've "taken the guy to the ground". From Osoto Gari, I could immediately transition into an armbar, a pin, or I could just walk away. You'd be surprised how many people don't know how to break fall.

I understand exactly what you mean. In every self defence situation you will try to make your opponent hit the ground. Good luck.

If they're not going to the ground, then I've done something wrong technique-wise. Judo/Bjj throws and takedowns are based on leverage and balance, not strength or size.

Yes but, strength and size definitely help you get to a position to apply techniques based on leverage and balance.

Unless I'm going against a black belt in Judo, they're going to get tossed or taken down.

There's that arrogance again; which is about as dangerous as planning how you will handle all self defence scenarios.

 

[Mauthos]

There's that arrogance again; which is about as dangerous as planning how you will handle all self defence scenarios.

I have to agree with this as I am not a BB in either BJJ or Judo and even though I have trained briefly in traditional Jujitsu (only about 1 year) I have a very senior traditional jujitisu instructor as a friend who is a 4th degree BB (also trained in bjj as he likes to compare the differences between the two, especially pros and cons) and also a friend who is BB in judo. I train with both a few times a year and they have both stated that I am one of the most difficult people they fight to take to the ground.

In fact the judo guy has remarked that my base is that solid and my centre of gravity is always low (short and stocky) that I already mitigate several of his throws before we even start. Therefore, I am not a jujitsu BB or Judo BB, yet these two very respected BB both state they find it very difficult to take me to the ground and when we fight, for want of a better description, anything goes rules, generally they eat a lot of strikes and punches whilst they a)try to get in, b)attempt to get hold of me and C) whilst attempting the throw/takedown.

In the years we have trained and sparred/fought together (yes me and the Judo guy do fight full contact, I don't against the JJ friend as he is late 60's and we take it easier as I respect him and don't want to hurt him (and in return when we fight jj rulesets he takes it a little easier on me)) I have come out on top of probably 80% of the fights. So I do find it incredibly arrogant that you think the only way you will not be able to take a guy down in a fight is, and I quote:

If they're not going to the ground, then I've done something wrong technique-wise. Judo/Bjj throws and takedowns are based on leverage and balance, not strength or size. Unless I'm going against a black belt in Judo, they're going to get tossed or taken down.

I would almost think that you have the belief that you are an unstoppable bjj/judo machine, but as Dinkydoo said, you may meet a better grappler (and it is odd that you think if they are better than you at one skill you will lose) then you have to reasess the situation. My example stands, my friends are better than me at judo and bjj, with their rulesets in mind, I rarely beat them. I am mainly a striker but have trained a variety of arts due to moving around in my career, therefore when we fight my skillset only, I tend to mainly win (which supports your theory, they are better grapplers than me, they win, I am a better striker than them I win). However, fighting 'anything goes' I tend to win as I have a greater skillset and tend to be able to adapt better than they do.