The BJJ Research Labs answer your questions: hair grabs on the ground

[Kung Fu Wang]

On the ground when grappling it is just to easy to get into a position to bite someone.

Agree! When you apply "arm bar" on your opponent and your legs are across your opponent's body, you will give him a chance to bite you. The reason is simple. Your opponent will still have a "free arm" that can pull your leg toward his mouth.

Here are examples:

 

[drop bear]

Agree! When you apply "arm bar" on your opponent and your legs are across your opponent's body, you will give him a chance to bite you. The reason is simple. Your opponent will still have a "free arm" that can pull your leg toward his mouth.

Here are examples:

you know how you dont cross your legs in that arm bar?

well if you do,you drive your shin/knee into the other guys face turning their head. So sometimes you can cross your legs.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you know how you dont cross your legs in that arm bar?

well if you do,you drive your shin/knee into the other guys face turning their head. So sometimes you can cross your legs.

As showing in your picture, the detail can make a big difference. If you can control your opponent's free arm with one of your legs, and also control your opponent's head turning with both of your legs, you can achieve the maximum safety for yourself.

IMO,

- wrestlers don't pay enough attention on punching in wrestling game,
- BJJ guys don't pay enough attention on biting in ground game.

Those are the general concern for all "sport" MA.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

you know how you dont cross your legs in that arm bar?

well if you do,you drive your shin/knee into the other guys face turning their head. So sometimes you can cross your legs.

Nothing wrong with crossing your ankles when applying an armbar. I do it. Ronda Rousey does it. Ryron Gracie does it. You just have to know how and when to do it. Often beginners are told not to cross their ankles because they haven't yet learned when it is appropriate.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Agree! When you apply "arm bar" on your opponent and your legs are across your opponent's body, you will give him a chance to bite you. The reason is simple. Your opponent will still have a "free arm" that can pull your leg toward his mouth.

Here are examples:

I don't think I'm too worried about someone biting me while I'm breaking their arm, but I think we have a good topic there for our next installment of "The BJJ Research Labs answer your questions." I'll get some volunteers and test it out. Give me a little more time on this one, since this isn't the sort of experiment that everyone will be lining up to be a part of.

 

[drop bear]

Nothing wrong with crossing your ankles when applying an armbar. I do it. Ronda Rousey does it. Ryron Gracie does it. You just have to know how and when to do it. Often beginners are told not to cross their ankles because they haven't yet learned when it is appropriate.

You got to learn the rules before you break them. I would be hesitant leaping off for that arm bar in a biting fight anyway.

The anti bite shin in face is just a side benifit to a pretty fundemental idea.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Biting while someone has an armbar and is breaking your arm is just not a good idea. You will probably get a broken arm. Could it work. Yes. Is it a really bad idea. Yes it really is... Concentrate on armbar defense that works like Moving one leg and coming to the inside guard or if they have crossed legs then moving their leg and coming up to the outside. These work and protect your arm at the same time!

Here is a video of Paul Vunak showing one area of his Kino Mutai system:

Note: Paul has real life issues but he is very solid with his martial skills

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Biting while someone has an armbar and is breaking your arm is just not a good idea. You will probably get a broken arm. Could it work. Yes. Is it a really bad idea. Yes it really is... Concentrate on armbar defense that works like Moving one leg and coming to the inside guard or if they have crossed legs then moving their leg and coming up to the outside. These work and protect your arm at the same time!

Here is a video of Paul Vunak showing one area of his Kino Mutai system:

Note: Paul has real life issues but he is very solid with his martial skills

Can't say that I care for Vunak's advocacy of biting from mount. Yes I'm sure he could inflict significant damage, but to what end?

To my mind, every technique should have a purpose - to protect yourself from damage, to incapacitate your opponent, or to provoke a reaction which will allow you to do one of those things.

Biting from mount serves no purpose in protecting you from damage. It will not incapacitate an opponent unless you can somehow rip open an artery in the throat and make him bleed to death. You could rip off an ear, cause a lot of pain, and inflict cosmetic damage. Perhaps you could damage a neck muscle enough to handicap the opponent somewhat if the fight continues. It doesn't do much to provoke a useful reaction because your opponent is already pinned in an inferior position and doesn't have many movement options anyway. The only reaction you can count on is for the opponent to fight that much more desperately and ruthlessly. If this was the sort of fight where peaceable surrender was an option, then you shouldn't be biting in the first place.

Downsides include exposure to blood borne pathogens and legal repercussions. It's going to be hard to convince a jury that you were justified in biting someone's ear off in self defense when you were on top of them and they were unarmed. (If they were armed they would likely be stabbing or shooting you while you were busy biting them.)

There are potential situations in a fight where I can see biting as possibly useful and justifiable. Being on top of mount is not one of them.

Knowing how to defend against an opponent who is mounted and biting you - that's more useful. I might have to get another research lab project going to examine that scenario.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can't say that I care for Vunak's advocacy of biting from mount. Yes I'm sure he could inflict significant damage, but to what end?

To my mind, every technique should have a purpose - to protect yourself from damage, to incapacitate your opponent, or to provoke a reaction which will allow you to do one of those things.

Biting from mount serves no purpose in protecting you from damage. It will not incapacitate an opponent unless you can somehow rip open an artery in the throat and make him bleed to death. You could rip off an ear, cause a lot of pain, and inflict cosmetic damage. Perhaps you could damage a neck muscle enough to handicap the opponent somewhat if the fight continues. It doesn't do much to provoke a useful reaction because your opponent is already pinned in an inferior position and doesn't have many movement options anyway. The only reaction you can count on is for the opponent to fight that much more desperately and ruthlessly. If this was the sort of fight where peaceable surrender was an option, then you shouldn't be biting in the first place.

Downsides include exposure to blood borne pathogens and legal repercussions. It's going to be hard to convince a jury that you were justified in biting someone's ear off in self defense when you were on top of them and they were unarmed. (If they were armed they would likely be stabbing or shooting you while you were busy biting them.)

There are potential situations in a fight where I can see biting as possibly useful and justifiable. Being on top of mount is not one of them.

Knowing how to defend against an opponent who is mounted and biting you - that's more useful. I might have to get another research lab project going to examine that scenario.

For every kind of useful purpose I can think of for biting from mount, I can think of other approaches that would be at least as effective. Maybe if they've managed to get me hugged in, and I can't generate an effective strike to make them want to defend...maybe. I'd imagine folks better at ground defense than me would readily have better solutions than biting, and I might too, if I were in the situation. I need to work on ground defense this evening with a student, anyway, so maybe I'll see what feels effective from that position (other than biting).

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For every kind of useful purpose I can think of for biting from mount, I can think of other approaches that would be at least as effective. Maybe if they've managed to get me hugged in, and I can't generate an effective strike to make them want to defend...maybe. I'd imagine folks better at ground defense than me would readily have better solutions than biting, and I might too, if I were in the situation. I need to work on ground defense this evening with a student, anyway, so maybe I'll see what feels effective from that position (other than biting).

Actually, I did think of one scenario where you might want to bite from mount. If the person on bottom is holding your head down so that you can't move quickly and you see that he has buddies running up to kick you while you're on the ground. In that case, most of the normal techniques for freeing your head will likely take too long. If you bite your opponent, he will likely switch from trying to hold you down to trying to push you away, and that should give you opportunity to get up before the additional assailants stomp your head.

If you don't have that emergency time pressure, then there are plenty of other ways to deal with the bottom person holding you tight.

I still maintain that going to bite as a primary attack, the way Vunak shows in that video, is a bad idea.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, I did think of one scenario where you might want to bite from mount. If the person on bottom is holding your head down so that you can't move quickly and you see that he has buddies running up to kick you while you're on the ground. In that case, most of the normal techniques for freeing your head will likely take too long. If you bite your opponent, he will likely switch from trying to hold you down to trying to push you away, and that should give you opportunity to get up before the additional assailants stomp your head.

If you don't have that emergency time pressure, then there are plenty of other ways to deal with the bottom person holding you tight.

I still maintain that going to bite as a primary attack, the way Vunak shows in that video, is a bad idea.

That fits with my idea of them hugging in, as the head seems the most likely huggable target (assuming I screw up and give him that opening). I don't have a ton of tools to work with from there, and would feel awfully exposed not being able to see around me.

Agreed on the use as a primary attack.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You could rip off an ear, cause a lot of pain, ...

This is why I don't care much about biting a hole on someone's leg but to bite one of his fingers off his hand. The fear that one will live for the rest of his life without that finger can make any tough guy to "tap out" ASAP.

"Temperate damage" such as to

- be choked out,
- have broken arm,
- have broken leg,
- ...

are different from "permanent damage" such as to lose

- a finger,
- an ear,
- an eyeball,
- your nose,
- ...

 

[drop bear]

Can't say that I care for Vunak's advocacy of biting from mount. Yes I'm sure he could inflict significant damage, but to what end?

To my mind, every technique should have a purpose - to protect yourself from damage, to incapacitate your opponent, or to provoke a reaction which will allow you to do one of those things.

Biting from mount serves no purpose in protecting you from damage. It will not incapacitate an opponent unless you can somehow rip open an artery in the throat and make him bleed to death. You could rip off an ear, cause a lot of pain, and inflict cosmetic damage. Perhaps you could damage a neck muscle enough to handicap the opponent somewhat if the fight continues. It doesn't do much to provoke a useful reaction because your opponent is already pinned in an inferior position and doesn't have many movement options anyway. The only reaction you can count on is for the opponent to fight that much more desperately and ruthlessly. If this was the sort of fight where peaceable surrender was an option, then you shouldn't be biting in the first place.

Downsides include exposure to blood borne pathogens and legal repercussions. It's going to be hard to convince a jury that you were justified in biting someone's ear off in self defense when you were on top of them and they were unarmed. (If they were armed they would likely be stabbing or shooting you while you were busy biting them.)

There are potential situations in a fight where I can see biting as possibly useful and justifiable. Being on top of mount is not one of them.

Knowing how to defend against an opponent who is mounted and biting you - that's more useful. I might have to get another research lab project going to examine that scenario.

Makes people think they are learning some sort of extra weapon. Or some extra element.

Again this is a case where the better grappler is pretty much going to be the better biter.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Makes people think they are learning some sort of extra weapon. Or some extra element.

Again this is a case where the better grappler is pretty much going to be the better biter.

Pretty much, because the grappling is the delivery system, That said, if you are going to use or defend against biting there are some details which are worth exploring before you end up in a real situation. I've experimented with those aspects just a little bit. Vunak has investigated them a lot more, so I'm sure he knows lots of subtle details I would be missing. I just don't agree that the tactics he shows in that clip are appropriate for the context.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This was actually a question that was asked over on reddit/r/bjj, but I thought the answers might be interesting for folks here as well.

The original question was:


I thought this was worthy of investigation. I have some workable techniques for defending against a standing hair grab, but I hadn't done any serious work on hair grabs on the ground for a while. Being inside someone's guard negates most of the standard standing techniques. I promised to do some experimentation and report back.

As promised, I did the first round of testing yesterday with a purple belt friend of mine who likes working on street scenarios. We started out with the original question (freeing yourself from the hair grab inside someone's closed guard) and then rolling in various positions with hair grabs allowed. Since this is obviously a street context, we added in strikes and (simulated) eye gouges , just for fun.

My friend has relatively short hair. I could grab it, but couldn't get a super secure grip. I'm about a month overdue for a haircut, so he was able to get really solid (and painful) grips on me.

Results:

With regards to suggestions made by others in the original Reddit thread:

Framing on the face is just a battle of wills to see who can take more pain. Not very effective, unless your hair is short enough that your opponent can't get a solid grip

Punching can work if your opponent doesn't know good punch defense from guard. If he does, then his regular punch defense is just that much more effective with the extra control on your head. There's no fun in figuring out how to beat an incompetent opponent, so let's pass that one by.

Peeling fingers doesn't really work because they aren't in an exposed position.

Stuff that did work:

Tripoding up and getting a good grind with my head into his face. It changes his priorities from holding me down with my hair. If he still held on, then a can opener* or an up-down choke forced him to relinquish my hair in order to defend.

When my partner tried to just statically hold me down by my hair, I was actually able to get a wristlock if he was holding at the top of my head rather than on the side. I'm not going to advocate this though because it takes a fair amount of sensitivity and understanding of wristlock mechanics to make it work. My purple belt friend was not able to make it work. Also (as I'll discuss in a minute), the static hold is not the best way to use the hair grab.

As we progressed, my friend figured out that the most effective use of the hair grab is to be active with it - pushing and pulling to create or close distance, adjust angles, or set up strikes, switching grips, twisting the head, etc. This forced me to be really on my game with my positional pressure.

Hair control from open guard is way more annoying that hair control from closed guard. You can really break someone's posture if you have your feet on their hips and a good fistful of their hair. Hair control + far sleeve control is probably ideal, but I need to do more investigation.

The scalp on the side of the head and on the back of the skull is more sensitive than on the top of the head, making hair control there more effective if the opponent's hair is long enough.

From bottom of side control a double handed grip on the hair(one hand on each side) allows you to press his head away and make space for recovering guard. (If you are on top and someone does this to you, be ready to transition to knee mount.)

If you have mount, hair control allows you to repeatedly bash their head on the ground. Doesn't work so well from side control.

Hair control can be used to make guard passing more difficult. As noted above, the key is to keep it active. If it's being used against you, pressure passing is your friend. Posturing up is difficult at this point. (On the other hand, if you maintain posture from the start it will be difficult for your opponent to get hair control without getting punched in the face.)

Hope this helps. If anyone else does this experiment I'd be interested to see what they discover.

* (Contrary to popular belief, there is actual technique to using the can opener and it can be used against larger opponents.** )

** (Within reason, I don't know that I would try a can opener on someone who was 60 pounds heavier unless they were really clueless.)

This is turning out to be a good look for you. BJJ Research Labs.

 

[JowGaWolf]

IMO, the caution should start from the "stand up". When you throw your opponent, you have to make sure that his arm is not wrapping around your waist so he can drag you down with him. You also have to make sure that his mouth is not near your fingers as well. In order to do so, each and every throw will need to be examined here. As far as I know, not many people have spent enough time in this area yet.

Since the "sport" rule, people may not pay attention on this. But for fighting, this issue will need to be addressed. In one fight, my teacher did bite one of his opponent's finger off. It works in reality and it can be an issue outside of "sport".

Yeah you are definitely a CMA practitioner lol.. Not hating on you, I just understand where you are coming from about. Throwing the opponent to the ground, without going to the ground with him. That's very CMA.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agree! When you apply "arm bar" on your opponent and your legs are across your opponent's body, you will give him a chance to bite you. The reason is simple. Your opponent will still have a "free arm" that can pull your leg toward his mouth.

Here are examples:

I guess it just depends on how fast that Arm bar sets in. If it sets in quickly then the pain from it will override the desire for a person to bite. The body is going to give priority to relieving the pain.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I guess it just depends on how fast that Arm bar sets in. If it sets in quickly then the pain from it will override the desire for a person to bite. The body is going to give priority to relieving the pain.

Even if an opponent continues to bite after I break his arm, I'm also now in position to gouge his eyes without him being able to defend. I'm pretty certain that will make most people let go of the bite. I also don't think the way I apply the arm bar gives people the position to get a really good bite in anyway.

That said, I think experimentation is preferable to theorizing, so I will do some lab tests. It might not be until next weekend though. I only have a limited number of training partners who are interested in doing this sort of exploration, so I need to wait until the next chance I have to work with one of them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Even if an opponent continues to bite after I break his arm, I'm also now in position to gouge his eyes without him being able to defend. I'm pretty certain that will make most people let go of the bite.

It may take

- 10 seconds to bite a hole on the leg.
- just 1 second to bite someone's finger off.

Here can be some interested tests.

test 1:

- A gets B on an arm bar.
- B sinks his teeth into A's leg muscle.

test 2:

- A gets B on neck choke.
- B bites on one of A's fingers.

Test this for 10 pairs each, and record who will tap out first. I have always wanted to test this on my BJJ friend but we never did this seriously.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It may take

- 10 seconds to bite a hole on the leg.
- just 1 second to bite someone's finger off.

Here can be some interested tests.

test 1:

- A gets B on an arm bar.
- B sinks his teeth into A's leg muscle.

test 2:

- A gets B on neck choke.
- B bites on one of A's fingers.

Test this for 10 pairs each, and record who will tap out first. I have always wanted to test this on my BJJ friend but we never did this seriously.

If you're going to bite in a fight, then fingers are probably the most effective target. You can relatively quickly inflict structural damage which will impair your opponents ability to fight.

That said, there is no choke I use where you would have any ability to bite my fingers once I have the choke. If you wanted to use biting against the choke you would have to intercept and redirect my choking hand before I got into position for the choke. Therefore we can't do test # 2 because you can't do a bite while I'm doing the choke. It's one or the other. Test # 1 is more viable, and that's one I was going to include in my experiments.