The Guard in self defense?

[Tony Dismukes]

The guard is a position used to limit (and control) the opponent's ability to continue to attack. It's defensive in nature, kinda by definition (that's why it has such a defensive name… the guard…).

That would be an accurate description of the origin of the guard, but there are a number of more offensive guards and approaches to using the guard that have been developed. See the video clip in the Ryan Hall MMA debut thread for an example.

A more precise distinction would probably be to say that the guard (of whatever variety) is designed to control the opponent's body for defensive and/or offensive purposes.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm… I'd say that the guard (standard, as that's really all I was addressing) is a position designed to control an opponent, prevent or limit further attacks, and allow you to respond with defensive or offensive techniques. Which is still completely different to the Koto Ryu method shown, as that's not a position, nor does it have a defensive aspect, and is not about control at all.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Hmm… I'd say that the guard (standard, as that's really all I was addressing) is a position designed to control an opponent, prevent or limit further attacks, and allow you to respond with defensive or offensive techniques.

That's not a bad description of the basic closed guard, which is what I assume you mean by "standard" guard. In BJJ, the term has broadened out considerably.

Which is still completely different to the Koto Ryu method shown, as that's not a position, nor does it have a defensive aspect, and is not about control at all.

The bits I've bolded are, I think, the key distinctions. The guard (which really should be pluralized - guards - since there are so many of them) is a systemized position of control for offensive and/or defensive purposes. the Koto Ryu method seems more like a stand-alone technique, not as any kind of systematic position for controlling an opponent.

 

[Chris Parker]

That's not a bad description of the basic closed guard, which is what I assume you mean by "standard" guard. In BJJ, the term has broadened out considerably.

Yep, and agreed. I would still say that the biggest factor is that the guard (whichever form) is a position, which is focused around preventing attacks (defensive)… which could obviously be done in a more or less offensive fashion, depending on the guard itself (and the practitioner).

The bits I've bolded are, I think, the key distinctions. The guard (which really should be pluralized - guards - since there are so many of them) is a systemized position of control for offensive and/or defensive purposes. the Koto Ryu method seems more like a stand-alone technique, not as any kind of systematic position for controlling an opponent.

Yeah, that's it. It's a technique the same way a RNC is a technique.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would still say that the biggest factor is that the guard (whichever form) is a position, which is focused around preventing attacks (defensive)… which could obviously be done in a more or less offensive fashion, depending on the guard itself (and the practitioner).

Mostly correct, but I would say that there are some guards (x-guard, for example) which are inherently more focused on attacking than on preventing attacks. Of course that gets somewhat subjective, since controlling your opponents body means that you can (and should) be both attacking and defending simultaneously.

To use the Ryan Hall example again, in his first and second TUF fights he pulled single-leg x-guard as an offensive maneuver and attacked continually until transitioning to 50/50 guard for the finish. Any defensive focus was totally secondary to the focus on attacking.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm not up on all the different guards that you guys like to make flavour of the month it seems, so I just had a quick look around at this single leg x-guard… and, to me, it still looks primarily defensive in that it's designed around controlling the opponent's mobility by entangling one of their legs, preventing them from moving around, passing, and continuing an offence. It's designed to put the aggressor (top person) on the defensive by forcing them to stop their forward momentum and seek an escape… so I'm not surprised it's used in conjunction with a more aggressive approach… but the idea of it being a guard, focused on controlling the opponent to prevent further attack (making it defensive in nature) seems to bear out.

I will say emphatically that defensive doesn't mean passive, nor does it mean that there is no attack present simultaneously.

 

[Steve]

Chris, how long have you been training bjj? What a cool surprise.

 

[Steve]

I think of guard as more neutral than defensive, Maybe a fine distinction, but important, I think. Could be defensive or offensive, but not necessarily one or the other.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, how long have you been training bjj? What a cool surprise.

I used to train with the Ground Zero guys (Gracie) here for a while… did a seminar with Royce during the time. Thought that'd been mentioned a few times… honestly, though, it's been something I've more dabbled in… my only serious time was for about a year or so. I think BJJ's a fantastic art, within it's context… it just ain't for me.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm not up on all the different guards that you guys like to make flavour of the month it seems, so I just had a quick look around at this single leg x-guard… and, to me, it still looks primarily defensive in that it's designed around controlling the opponent's mobility by entangling one of their legs, preventing them from moving around, passing, and continuing an offence. It's designed to put the aggressor (top person) on the defensive by forcing them to stop their forward momentum and seek an escape… so I'm not surprised it's used in conjunction with a more aggressive approach… but the idea of it being a guard, focused on controlling the opponent to prevent further attack (making it defensive in nature) seems to bear out.

I will say emphatically that defensive doesn't mean passive, nor does it mean that there is no attack present simultaneously.

Look at it this way. Consider the full mount. You could argue that it's "defensive" because it is designed to control an opponent's mobility so that he can't move around and launch an effective offense. Realistically, though, anyone who uses it considers it to be an offensive position. When you are in full mount, you are devoting most of your time and mental focus to attacking. Perhaps you could say that because the position automatically takes care for the defense for you, almost all of your active work goes into attacking.

Single-leg x-guard is much the same, although not as extreme. When I am in full mount on an opponent, 95% of my attention goes into attacking. When I have an opponent in single-leg x-guard, it might be more like 70% of my attention goes into attacking.

When I have my opponent in full-guard, for comparison, it's more like 50/50 defense/offense and the offense only kicks into gear once I have solidified my defense.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm… this gets rather difficult to describe in words, as much of it is contextually defined, as well as to do with the "feeling" (ooh, such a Bujinkan word!) of the positions… but no, I'd say rather clearly that the mount is absolutely offensive. And much of it is in the reasons you've listed (where much of the energy and focus goes)… as well as the relative position of the opponent, and the tactical options given to and restricted from each person.

Your last line there, honestly, is basically saying exactly what I've been saying… that it's a position based around a solid defensive capability which also allows for offensive actions (you can defend from mount as well, of course… neither position is locked into only one application). I'm finding it hard to follow where the argument comes from when you're saying the same thing…

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Hmm… this gets rather difficult to describe in words, as much of it is contextually defined, as well as to do with the "feeling" (ooh, such a Bujinkan word!) of the positions… but no, I'd say rather clearly that the mount is absolutely offensive. And much of it is in the reasons you've listed (where much of the energy and focus goes)… as well as the relative position of the opponent, and the tactical options given to and restricted from each person.

I think we are in agreement here. I was trying to steer clear of mentioning the "feeling" of the position, because that's hard to communicate in text, but that's pretty much what it comes down to.

Your last line there, honestly, is basically saying exactly what I've been saying… that it's a position based around a solid defensive capability which also allows for offensive actions (you can defend from mount as well, of course… neither position is locked into only one application). I'm finding it hard to follow where the argument comes from when you're saying the same thing…

That last line was only concerning the basic full guard. I think we already established that we agree on that.

The correction was regarding some of the other guards in general and single-leg x in particular, since you mentioned that based on what you just looked up that it looks "primarily defensive" to you. I hate to pull the "speaking from authority" card, but you're going to have to take my word that the "feel" of single-leg x-guard is primarily offensive. Not so much so as full mount, but definitely more offensive than defensive.

It might seem like a niggling nitpick, but I would think that you would be the last person on this forum to object to corrections on the fine distinctions and esoteric details of an art.

 

[Hanzou]

Despite what Yossi and the Akban boys have put as the title, that's not a "jumping guard". At all.

Then why do they call it the guard?

As for self defense, they were talking about breaking noses and such. Additionally, (as far as I know) they're not sport guys.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think we are in agreement here. I was trying to steer clear of mentioning the "feeling" of the position, because that's hard to communicate in text, but that's pretty much what it comes down to.

Cool. Yep, definitely in agreement there.

That last line was only concerning the basic full guard. I think we already established that we agree on that.

Again, cool.

The correction was regarding some of the other guards in general and single-leg x in particular, since you mentioned that based on what you just looked up that it looks "primarily defensive" to you. I hate to pull the "speaking from authority" card, but you're going to have to take my word that the "feel" of single-leg x-guard is primarily offensive. Not so much so as full mount, but definitely more offensive than defensive.

Fair enough. As I said, that's what it looks like to me… of course, you're well within your rights to pull the "speaking from authority" card (ha!), as, well, that's exactly what you're in a position to do!

It might seem like a niggling nitpick, but I would think that you would be the last person on this forum to object to corrections on the fine distinctions and esoteric details of an art.

Ha, yep, agreed.

Then why do they call it the guard?

You'd need to ask Yossi… but my feeling is that it looks superficially enough like a guard (position) that Yossi felt it would appeal to more viewers for the video if he titled it that way.

As for self defense, they were talking about breaking noses and such. Additionally, (as far as I know) they're not sport guys.

And what makes that self defence? I mean… you do know that noses get broken in sports as well, yeah? And that "sport" and "self defence" are but two possible focuses for a martial study… neither of which are exhaustive in their comprehension.

 

[Hanzou]

You'd need to ask Yossi… but my feeling is that it looks superficially enough like a guard (position) that Yossi felt it would appeal to more viewers for the video if he titled it that way.

Well the Akban has made it no secret that they have trained in Bjj, and utilize Bjj as part of their curriculum;

Portal: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, BJJ

So that explains that.

And what makes that self defence? I mean… you do know that noses get broken in sports as well, yeah? And that "sport" and "self defence" are but two possible focuses for a martial study… neither of which are exhaustive in their comprehension.

Well what other purpose would it serve if they're not learning those techniques for sport? Just for the hell of it? It's pretty clear that the intention of those techniques is for self defense.

 

[Chris Parker]

Well the Akban has made it no secret that they have trained in Bjj, and utilize Bjj as part of their curriculum;

Portal: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, BJJ

So that explains that.

Except what is shown (Hissaku) is not BJJ… it is not related to BJJ, it is not part of BJJ, it is nothing to do with any BJJ that Yossi and his boys might do. I'd also say that the description given on his page doesn't show much in depth about BJJ training… instead, it implies bringing in teachers every now and then to get what they can out of it (not a bad idea in the slightest)… I'd also point out that they've previously claimed training in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu as well, to the point of putting up a video of them performing the first kata in the Tachijutsu, Itsutsu no Tachi. Thing is, what they showed made it patently obvious that they've never had a teacher in the art, they were missing many, many aspects (both physical actions, and in understanding) of the kata itself… when I called them on it, Yossi threw a fit, gave excuses, removed the video from the net, and has since banned me from commenting on their videos on you-tube… so much for "Any criticism is welcomed" on that page, ha!

Well what other purpose would it serve if they're not learning those techniques for sport? Just for the hell of it? It's pretty clear that the intention of those techniques is for self defense.

You've never studied classical systems, have you?

There are many reasons for studying such. It can range from gaining a tactical understanding, to a cultural insight, through to grasping historical combat, to, well, many other aspects. Here's something for you to ponder, though… these arts were never designed for, intended for, or based around the idea of "self defence"… in some ways, they weren't even designed (as written) for strict combative usage at all… but please, don't try to tell me what my own techniques are for again. Especially when I'm trying to help you improve your understanding of something you've seen, but not had the first clue about.

 

[Hanzou]

Except what is shown (Hissaku) is not BJJ… it is not related to BJJ, it is not part of BJJ, it is nothing to do with any BJJ that Yossi and his boys might do.

Except in that video I posted, it's titled "Jump Guard tutorial" and he pulls his opponent into guard. Additionally he proceeds to perform a double ankle sweep. All of which is found in Bjj.

I'd also say that the description given on his page doesn't show much in depth about BJJ training… instead, it implies bringing in teachers every now and then to get what they can out of it (not a bad idea in the slightest)… I'd also point out that they've previously claimed training in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu as well, to the point of putting up a video of them performing the first kata in the Tachijutsu, Itsutsu no Tachi. Thing is, what they showed made it patently obvious that they've never had a teacher in the art, they were missing many, many aspects (both physical actions, and in understanding) of the kata itself… when I called them on it, Yossi threw a fit, gave excuses, removed the video from the net, and has since banned me from commenting on their videos on you-tube… so much for "Any criticism is welcomed" on that page, ha!

That judgement seems to run counter to what the Akban has stated themselves;

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is a mainstay in the syllabus of AKBAN with an ongoing process of learning that we do with the help of BJJ teachers.

Now if you have issue with their katas, techniques, or whatever, that's a personal axe that you're welcomed to grind elsewhere. However in this case, it's pretty clear that the Akban are trained in Bjj.

You've never studied classical systems, have you?

There are many reasons for studying such. It can range from gaining a tactical understanding, to a cultural insight, through to grasping historical combat, to, well, many other aspects. Here's something for you to ponder, though… these arts were never designed for, intended for, or based around the idea of "self defence"… in some ways, they weren't even designed (as written) for strict combative usage at all… but please, don't try to tell me what my own techniques are for again. Especially when I'm trying to help you improve your understanding of something you've seen, but not had the first clue about.

Well we're not talking about YOUR techniques. We're talking about the Akban's techniques. If the Akban is misrepresenting Ninjutsu in some form, that's something that Ninjutsu practitioners need to settle. However, if a Ninjutsu organization is very clearly utilizing Bjj techniques, and even states that they are using Bjj techniques, I'm not wrong in pointing that out.

 

[Steve]

If it's grappling and it works, it's all bjj. If it's grappling and it doesn't work, it's not bjj.

 

[elder999]

If it's grappling and it works, it's all bjj. If it's grappling and it doesn't work, it's not bjj.

Of course, keep in mind that "BJJ" means "Basically Just Judo"

 

[Steve]

Of course, keep in mind that "BJJ" means "Basically Just Judo"

That's fine, because Judo works, and therefore is BJJ.